Painful as it is to
record the fact, juries are sometimes almost as sceptical in
regard to doctors as they always are in regard to lawyers.
The usual effect of the expert testimony on one side is to
neutralize that on the other, for there is no practical way
for the jury to distinguish between experts, since the foolish
ones generally look as learned as the wise ones. The result
is hopeless confusion on the part of the juryman, an
inclination to "throw it all out," and a resort to other
testimony to help him out of his difficulty. Of course he has
no individual way of telling whether the defendant "knew right
from wrong," whatever that may mean, and so the ultimate test
that he applies is apt to be whether or not the defendant is
really "queer," "nutty" or "bughouse," or some other equally
intelligible equivalent far "medically insane."
The unfortunate consequence is that there is so general and
growing a scepticism about the plea of insanity, entirely
apart from its actual merits, that it is difficult in ordinary
cases, whatever the jurors may think or say in regard to the
matter, to secure twelve men who will give the defence fair
consideration at the outset.
Pages:
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309