Student Scholarship

Document Type

Research Paper

Abstract

This paper examines the 1962 application and criticism of the Durham Rule, a legal standard for the insanity defense established in 1954 which stipulates that an accused is not criminally responsible if their unlawful act was the product of mental disease or defect. The author begins by tracing the historical evolution of the insanity plea from primitive times through the development of the M'Naghten Rule in 1843, which focuses on a defendant's ability to distinguish right from wrong. The Durham Rule was intended to align the law with modern psychiatric knowledge, allowing experts to testify in the language of their own discipline rather than being restricted to the moralistic "right-wrong" criteria. 

In 1962, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia saw the insanity defense utilized in approximately 4.5% of criminal cases, spanning offenses from murder and rape to narcotics violations. The research highlights a discrepancy between psychiatric testimony and jury perceptions, noting that jurors often expect "strange" behavior and are more likely to convict when a defendant appears rational, even if medical experts agree on a diagnosis of mental illness. Significant appellate decisions in 1962 further shaped the rule, such as the Jenkins case, which affirmed that qualified psychologists could provide expert testimony, and the McDonald case, which provided the first legal definition of "mental disease or defect" since the rule's inception. 

Critics of the Durham Rule argue that it is too vague, places an impossible burden of proof on the prosecution to prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt, and leads to an increase in insanity acquittals. Despite these challenges, the author concludes that the Durham Rule remains the only standard truly compatible with dynamic psychiatry. The 1962 McDonald decision is viewed as a vital modification that addresses operational abuses while preserving the rule's essential goal of integrating medical insight into the legal process.

Research Highlights

  • The Problem: The legal criterion for determining criminal responsibility, specifically the M'Naghten Rule's "right-and-wrong" test, failed to align with modern psychiatric knowledge and hindered expert testimony in the District of Columbia. 

  • The Method: This 1963 study analyzes the historical evolution of the insanity plea, the 1954 adoption of the Durham Rule, and its 1962 application in District of Columbia trials involving murder, narcotics, and sexual assault. 

  • Quantitative Finding: In fiscal year 1962, there were 67 acquittals by reason of insanity out of 1,493 total criminal defendants, representing approximately 4.5% of cases; the rate of insanity acquittals rose from less than 1% in fiscal year 1954 to 4% in fiscal year 1962. 

  • Qualitative Finding: The 1962 McDonald v. United States decision provided the first legal definition of mental disease as an abnormal condition substantially affecting mental processes and impairing behavior controls; the Durham Rule allows psychiatrists to testify in dynamic terms rather than being restricted to the "right-wrong" formula.

Publication Date

1-1963

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

Faculty Sponsor

Archive

Download

Included in

Criminal Law Commons

Share

COinS