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 true that most of the debate on the subject has centered around the substantive law governing the "tests" of criminal responsibility: what sort and degree of mental disorder must a person have to excuse him from criminal liability for his act? The sad fact is, however, that all that has been said and written on that subject during the past hundred years has resulted in just exactly nothing so far as affecting any change in the law is concerned. The tests of insanity have not been changed in the slightest; even M'Naghten's Case,' usually looked upon as the leading case on the subject, added nothing to the law as it stood before that famous opinion was delivered in i843. As the writer has pointed out elsewhere,2 there has not even been any tendency toward a change, and the possibility of any reform in this direction in the near future seems slight. This lack of any development in the substantive law of criminal responsibility has been the subject of so much deploring and caustic comment that we have rather lost sight of the very real advances that have been made by means of procedural changes. It is the purpose of this paper to discuss one of the most helpful of the modern procedural devices which have been found for improving the handling of these cases-that embodied in statutes providing for a psychiatric examination of the defendant before the criminal trial.

An Alternative to the Battle of Experts: Hospital Examination of Criminal Defendants before Trial