Behavioral science research; Behavioral science and law, part four

The poing program is produced by the University of Michigan broadcasting service under a grant he made from the National Educational Television and Radio Center in cooperation with the National Association of educational broadcasters. The doctor and the lawyer view the law. A program from the series human behavior social and medical research produced by the University of Michigan broadcasting service the people you will hear today are Dr Bernard Diamond and his attorney wife Anne Diamond on the second and last portion of an interview held with them in their San Francisco home. My name is Glenn Phillips. During this portion of the interview with Dr. and Mrs. Diamond the discussion went to criminal responsibility as a psycho analyst and an attorney with vast interest in the state of law institutions and law practices in the United States. They are expert and perceptive analyst of the present scene. This discussion began with Dr. Diamond discussing his feelings about forensic

psychiatry and criminal responsibility and a practicing psychoanalyst actually and I'm concerned primarily with human dynamics and our mental treatment. Psychopathology in the field of forensic psychiatry has been amazingly little contribution by psychodynamic we are as psychiatrists a field of forensic psychiatry has been nominated by many many for many many years by what we call the crank the Linnaean approach to Kraven was a great classifier in psychiatry who at the turn of the century worked out the system of classification of metal that was then we used today and forensic psychiatry has been dominated by this diagnostic or

classification approach and it's only been in recent years as psycho analysts have turned their attention to the problem of. Crime and such concepts as criminal responsibility. This has come to interest me very greatly and those of us in the psychoanalytic feel very old and the psychodynamic approach toward criminal responsibility offers a great deal more than does a static diagnostic of it. Just the past of course were very greatly dissatisfied with many of the legal formulations that were required to you and evaluating the mentally ill criminal offender. The chief target against which most of us work is the concept of criminal responsibility of the mentally ill is defined in the McNaughton rules mean not the case with a famous case in 1843 in which the

name Lennon let's say judges of England they name the so-called Right Wrong asked that the criminal responsibility of a defendant must to be determined by whether or not he knows the difference between right and wrong. In other words the emphasis on the legal concept of criminal responsibility is concerned mainly with cognition. Did individual know what he was doing and know that it was wrong. So I could I now make psychiatry is much less concerned with cognition as it is with the interplay of forces within the human personality. And we know that there are a great many people who know perfectly well what they're doing but have little or no control over their actions little or nothing to say about their their behavior and they cry and can very frequently be a direct symptom of

mental illness. And yet such persons know that what they're doing is wrong. And as a consequence of all this society punishes people for what amounts to symptoms of mental illness and we are looking for solutions to this problem in terms. Possible modification of the legal formula changes in the treatment of prisoners both mentally ill and not. And we try to explore all possible avenues which might bring about what would be a more humane handling by society of the individual commits a criminal action as a result of mental health. Well is there ever a case when a individual commits a criminal act where this would not be construed to be a symptom of a mental health.

Yes I think so I'll say that one can take the extreme position of criminality and that's how is necessarily a sentimental aliveness. There are many many different reasons for social deviation and crime is just one form of social deviation. There are all different kinds of crime and in my mind come my no means makes a generalization among most that one could say that crime is a form of social deviation unlike other forms of deviant behavior. It is very likely to be the result of mental illness. You know as what we as psychiatrists are not interested in taking over the field of criminal law are taking over the. Field of penology. You know we don't want to and show us

that crime be a matter handled exclusively by doctors in hospitals. We simply want to make our contribution to the field of. Crime and treatment of crime in such a way as to lead to more successful resolves a law that they will achieve by now. And if the goal of the criminal law is conceived as a protection of society judging by the increasing crime rates we would say that from a lot of very poor job and we think that if certain. Lessons were to be learned from me methodology. Medicine psychology of psychiatry and science in general. Then the batting average the more cards judged by actual action to show how they could be great and have

turned to the attorney for a moment which is Diamond How will this research develops in this particular field. How will it benefit and perhaps even change the practice of criminal law. All Unfortunately very little to be said to be dying from a law and you know other behavior science says there's always a follow up that is included. Talk to be a very poor doctor indeed who didn't follow through on this and the supposed cure and see what happened to Cuba a fact it was the temp around it was high and lofty don't do that. A crime is committed in trial has had a defendant is. Sentenced and as far as our legal system is concerned from then on it is handed over to entirely different hands.

So the judge will never know as devoted to this particular sentence will have one divided one will the defendant be cured. Follow through he may have certain judgement sentence hundreds of individuals in front of him and he will not be able to peer review on this somewhat exceptional circumstances over all of this and what happened to Angelo I think you know the key difference between law and medicine that is medicine uses the scientific method while the law does not. I think would be very wrong for a scientist. And what a behavioral scientists or any other scientist who want to impose upon social institutions law

any of the conclusions are of the findings of science. Many of these findings are simply not appropriate to the field of law. And have no relevancy what we do feel we're justified in indoctrinating lies in the scientific method. As I'm doing math it is no magical Hocus Pocus is nothing mysterious it and the thing that cannot be adapted to any field of human behavior in its essence I think the scientific method consists of the making of observation and putting these observations to test and determining the results. And if the results are not in cartons with whatever theory has been constructed for whatever plan of action or plan of

experimentation has been devised then here your theory is modified accordingly. And. You know medicine is not always used as scientific method and I've been to a few hundred years ago medicine was entirely in Caracal just like the lawyers and doctors were not basically concerned with the advocacy of their amity. So that medicines were given certain treatments were administered far for hundreds even thousands of years without much attention me paid to the fact that they didn't work. Well the scientific. Medicine developed and the basic sciences and medicine progressed to the point where it was possible to construct certain prophecies or theories of human anatomy human physiology metabolism and biochemistry and remedies

would be devised and along the lines of these theories. And then there would be a very very careful analysis of the results of these treatments and those treatments which would be. Successful would be developed further and those which were unsuccessful would be abandoned and ILO has not yet progressed to this point where it's willing to examine its results. And points out that there's practically no follow up in terms of the law. Then there are the progress report. The courts of law don't seem to be concerned with whether or not the punishment which is meted out the sentence has the desired fact and remedy the this social deviation or not. And there is no. Feedback I'd say from the prisons to the courts of law and there is no no attempt at analysis of the

results. I would like to visualize the situation where the law becomes very keenly interested in its own remedies where it puts its remedies to the test of actual practice and those that do not meet the required standards of advocacy are abandoned and new ones are adopted. Instead of that of course what we have today is a law apply certain remedies which are followed blindly. Certain social ritualistic procedures and whether they work or they don't work seems to be of no concern to the law. That's a good good and last ration to bring up something of the very minor crimes and yes arrests for. Drunkenness. There is no large sit in children. Courts are full of the

costs and not on the same individual was not the beginning of. The. Scientific methodology is beginning to be shown where only a certain set is experiments on these people instead of being put into jail for a few days and they go out and be dragged back you know a week later no certain treatments out at least 10 dead. San Francisco has done little of doing quite a bit. So yeah there's a certain amount of it a lot of it is just lip service laughing. I would not dignify it by the label of being scientific. But there are indications of some change. One of the problems in this area is that the law does not have its goal as clearly defined as does matters.

The medicine operates on certain very simple basic assumptions and certain very definite goal which are strictly for God. For example one of the basic assumptions of that. Better to be alive and is the dad of anything which can be done to continue life is desirable. Anything which can be done to eradicate pain and suffering is a desirable goal. The physician at all times know what he is supposed to do. He's supposed to keep people from dying. You let them live as long as possible to be as healthy as free from pain and suffering and that he regulates his profession on that basis. Law it seems to me is terribly muddled as

to what its goals are to present time. Certainly centuries ago the goal of the criminal law was very clear and much last to do with the protection of society but had to do primarily with problems of vengeance retribution punishment and. Many of the formulations of the law. This is the very principles on which law operates goes back to these ancient times where the goal of the law was to go and minister. Vengeance punishment and retribution. Many people I think including many members of the legal profession judges lawyers and others would feel that this is no longer a desirable goal far for a law to be concerned primarily with with their retribution vengeance

and he said persons would consider a more desirable goal would be the maximum protection of society and the greatest possible rehabilitation of the individual. Now it may well be that these goals are the ancient goal of the law and the modern functions of law are in sharp contradiction techniques and practices which have to do with the earlier. Objects. Are not applicable to the D-minor goals of the law works at cross purposes as well illustrated by the fact if you. Really want to rehabilitate his image. Punish me with the world's worst way of going about it. Perhaps the surest way these many individuals make

certain that they are not rehabilitated so that the concept of vengeance punishment retribution. Simply does not operate efficiently. If the goal is to protect against a deviant and to rehabilitate the individual deviant. These are kind of broad philosophical problems and I think the law has to tackle very directly and formulate a theory of its operation. That it did this centuries ago. And as a result has been able to make any progress with the law. Well we'll leave that in one day in the future who knows when. Arrive at a point where the penal institutions will be agencies of correction rather than punishment.

Well this is beginning to happen already. I think that most of the prison said better States which California has one operate under just this principle they conceive now as agencies of rehabilitation rather than as agencies punishment. The difference go away comes in when this concept is accepted only superficial a fortune. Even our state here California we have a very excellent prison. The residuals of the past the heritage of the days when law stood for punishment and revenge still persist. And one could go to even the very best California prison right now. No room or way in which their goal of rehabilitation and social protection is being defeated by these are ok

relics. Theory of law which is applicable today. I was just going to affect I mean the study of behavioral sciences applying it to the law. How is it going to affect the selection of jurors. Well this is a double edged question and I'll wind up many many. Problems of how do you conceive of the situation of the jury. And I want to just one thing that I was was going to say is that perhaps the degree of change as far as the jewelry is concerned is to limit its functions totally to the fact finding and to me the

behavior of your size is to come into play after the fact or far as far as hard to rehabilitate. I bet that'll be basically my and my feeling as a life doing I don't want to add to it. Yeah rather the institution or a mall are just a simple function of bring in a verdict of guilty or not guilty. The concept of. Man's right. Every person's right to be tried by a jury of his peer is a very integral part of the democratic process and. I would seriously wonder whether one could. Abandon the jury system completely abandon it without giving up stream important safeguards that surround the

democratic process particularly those having to do with civil rights personal liberties. The jury the institution of the jury and jury trial may have many of the facts. As a decision making are zation course that's for a jury function as decision making. Social institution it may not be the best possible way of making his decision but if the fringe benefits of the jury system in terms of. The democratic process are justify the shortcomings of Imus just want to retain it. I would. True it would subscribe the idea that the jury system should be retained as a fact finding body as a decision making body in terms of certain basic questions such as did or did not

defend commit certain acts. And I would not want to leave a function to. Have. Action. Say but the decision as to what the individual what happens to the defendant after he is convicted as to what is the best method for his rehabilitation for treatment. This I think is probably the province of the juror and could be taken out of the jury system without in any way threatening the social role of the juror. Preserving civil rights personal liberty is the general public sophisticated enough to assimilate the research findings that are being uncovered each and every day. Yes I think so all of it. First of all the

public as a whole has an enormous interest in the head of Sciences. They may not recognize their interest under the name of behavioral finance and may be suspicious of the label. But by and large anything which has to do with human conduct psychological or social life. There's always a very eager. Public and they can't seem to get enough of it. They are. I think highly disposed Karzi exceptions. Almost anything that behavioral science has to offer. If it is interpreted to them. Laugh. Much they can comprehend. I think it's terribly unfortunate that the behavioral scientists and talk and esoteric

vocabularies do introduce concepts and such a way that it is very difficult for the public a whole as a whole. Even their fellow scientists to to understand. And if this problem of communication can be solved then I think they would be very just fall towards exceptions. Just buy anything. Behavioral Sciences. Offer a little easier for you and for you. Normally the final question what can I leave myself open. To what can a communication medium do better serve not only the public but the particular in this case the behavioral scientist but in many cases the medical professional or professional would have far something I would like to see that is a tremendous amount of news play in print and

their time be devoted to. This question. The gruesome murder case is to have some calm and this passionate discussion of. What takes place that may not be quite so says it all but I think that the general public is really quite interested I think the general public is very much interested in the India prata Jouni process for instance and they do not get it. I don't think you have to leave out the gruesome and the sensational because you're depriving yourself one of the best avenues of communication. It's precisely these elements of strong emotion that I think permit communication perhaps a deeper than I would ordinarily be possible and I doubt that the newspaper that the

sensationalized south and news would have very much of a reading public. Seems to me the goal is to integrate. The knowledge that comes out of behavioral science in two of the sensational aspects of everyday life that create great interest arouses its great interest and to use them as a medium of communication so that every day the same murder trial with all of its sensational headlines. And so forth if it's just nothing but sensation and nothing has been accomplished. But if there is a social message a message goes along with it with the gory details then this is a way of getting arousing public interest and getting your message across. Some might I suppose analogous to the techniques of advertising that if you've got a commercial

message to be in a framework which create interest on the part of the list very well so I think the behavioral scientist has a message and he can get this across with any framework of those things that make it in a rush. This has been the second of two programs with Dr Bernard Diamond and his wife attorney and diamond as recorded in their home in San Francisco. First our thanks for their participation in this series and my personal thanks for their cordiality shown me while visiting with them. Next week you will hear the Honorable David L. bass a lot circuit judge of the United States Dr. Philip Hugh Roche of Philadelphia and Dr. Harry Calvin Jr. of the University of Chicago Law School as they discuss research on Law and behavior on the next program from the series human behavior social and medical research consultant for this program was Dr. Andrew Watson of the University of Michigan. We extend our special thanks to the Mental

Health Research Institute of the University of Michigan for their assistance. Glenn Phillips speaking asking that you join us next week and thanking you for being with us at this time. This program has been produced by the University of Michigan broadcasting service under a grant in aid from the National Educational Television and Radio Center in cooperation with the National Association of educational broadcasters. This is the NEA E.B. Radio Network.