Dr. Winslade does not like to candy coat his opinions.
The introduction to "The Insanity Plea" is always impassioned, to the point of being hostile at some parts. He begins with a list of frequent complaints people have about the criminal justice system (courts are soft on crime; the rich can afford bett
er lawyers; corrupt police; etc.) then boils them all down to one major complaint: people go free. He goes on to discuss the problem of guilty people who plead insanity who go free. This is a problem, according to Dr. Winslade, because "we are trouble by the question of how to assign responsibility." The way the criminal justice system chooses to solve this problem in an insanity case is to refer to an expert, a psychiatrist. This is supposed to make us feel better...but does it actually give us a definitive knowledge about whether or not the criminal was in his right mind? He then talks awhile about our "ambiguous and ambivalent attitude about killing and about killers," which is a fascinating idea but a completely different ethical topic to discuss.
Dr. Winslade's hostility comes out especially when he starts talking about psychiatrists and psychology in general. Of course it's also possible that I'm seeing this words through the eyes of a passionate psychology major , so I'll let the readers decide on this one. He cites two specific problems. The first is "the assumption that psychiatry is based on a scientifically tested theory and body of knowledge..." I would argue that that assumption is actually a valid one; we have specific clinical interviews and techniques, as well as neurophysiological tests, that can help us diagnose patients with severe brain disorders. However, Winslade does make the point that psychiatric testimony is usually based only on a series of interviews, which does have the potential to skew the diagnosis based on what the client says. The second is that psychiatry and the law are "philosophically incompatible." Basically, the law assigns responsibility, but psychiatry asks "why did they do that?" which can make things messy and less reasonable. Dr. Winslade makes it very clear that psychology and law should not try to compete in the courtroom. The cases in the book serve to "show the law and psychiatry at their worst, struggling openly to resolve their disagreements."
We haven't even gotten to the moral side of this issue and we're already preparing for an all-out battle.
But now that we are talking about morals, let me comment on one interesting issue Dr. Winslade brings up. In trying to answer the question of why we are so fascinated by violent crime, he directs us to our society's moral aspirations. Basically, we are a society driven to be perfect while believing that we are in fact perfect. By holding up this pretense of perfection, we are forced to hide our darker impulses. We are intrigued and terrified by violent crime because, in some ways, it is an opportunity to see what it would be like if for one minute we let our pretenses fall and gave our negative emotions free reign. Now, is this assumption saying we should drop the "act" and let our violence out whenever it feels caged? Not at all! However, I think that we as Christians should let go of moral perfectionism. God interceded for our everyday downfalls; we don't have to hide them or make sacrifices because of them! This is the basis of the New Covenant at the end of the Old Testament: it is unconditional and takes into account the human dilemma of fallibility. I guess I would really encourage an awareness of this covenant as you go about your week. Maybe it's best to let those imperfections happen with the knowledge that we are still children of God.
Have a lovely week!
Kelsey
