Indiana Law Journal Criminal Responsibility and Mental Disorder: New Approaches to an Old Problem

For at least 111 years society has been searching for a will o' the wisp "legal test" of criminal responsibility, i.e., liability for punishment provided by law, applicable to all cases in which the defense of insanity is raised.' The purpose of the search is obvious: Society wants a legal standard by which to judge whether or not a man should be held responsible for his acts in order to establish certainty in the law, both for protection of the accused and for the aid of the trier of fact. The search is complicated because considerations other than legal-those of a factual and ethical nature-must be weighed in establishing such a standard.2 An "ideal" legal formula for responsibility should balance three factors: (1) The test should be based on the criminal law principle that no man can be guilty of a crime unless he is proven capable of forming the criminal intent required for the commission of the crime, that is, capable of wilfully and consciously performing the act producing the harm.3 (2) The test should provide for the most reliable medical evidence on every facet of the accused's mental condition to aid in the determination of his responsibility at the time of the crime. (3) Finally, the test should be easily understood and applied by the trier of fact, usually the jury, guiding it to a "just" decision by relating the medical evidence to the legal principle. A test balancing these three features would do much to pro-