English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

It is common knowledge that the significant advance in understanding mental disorders has not been markedly evidenced in public provisions for the treatment of mental disease. In fact most treatment has lagged far behind accepted principles and techniques for handling persons who are victims of mental deterioration and emotional disorders. This is true in the case of civilian mental patients. For those mentally deranged persons who have committed serious offenses, normally designated as crimes, the problem of treatment is complicated, not merely by the generally retarded standards of public institutions, but by the whole legal philosophy as to what constitutes both crime and insanity. On the one hand the offender is de facto guilty of criminal behavior, of having committed an offense or a series of offenses which are specifically forbidden by law. As such, he is liable to conviction and sentence according to the law. The law, on the other hand, has long since incorporated the principles of man's "responsibility" for his conduct, whether it be acceptable or condemned, in accordance with the classical and ecclesiastical philosophy out of which this theory grew. Such ecclesiastical theory has held on a priori grounds that man is a free, moral agent, one who makes a free choice in his decision to do right or wrong. On the other hand, men of unsound mind (non compos mentis) have long since been recognized as incompetent to make such decisions; hence, by strictest application of legal philosophy, the mentally deranged who have committed crimes have been adjudged "irresponsible because insane." On such grounds many cases of persons suffering from violent mental disturbances have been allowed to go scot-free after the commission of what would otherwise have been adjudged a serious offense. Earlier such persons were acquitted as "not guilty," with no adequate provision for the protection of society against the further damages of similar outbreaks of violence.

Court Procedure and Subsequent Treatment in Case of the Criminal Insane