“The introduction of psychiatric considerations into the administration of the criminal law – for example, the insanity plea and verdict, diagnoses of mental incompetence to stand trial, and so forth – corrupt the law and victimize the subject on whose behalf they are ostensibly employed.” [Thomas Szasz, late Professor of Psychiatry Emeritus, in his book The Myth of Mental Illness]
Have you ever thought that a particular court case was frivolous and should just be thrown out of court without any further consideration? I have; and it got me thinking about what exactly is the purpose of the Judicial system.
Constitutionally, the Judicial system is laid out in the very short six paragraphs of Article III of the U.S. Constitution. It is rather specific about what cases shall be referred to a court; I suggest you read it to find out exactly what a court should be able to adjudicate.
Practically, the Judicial system acts as a check and balance against the other two branches of the government, the Legislative and Executive branches.
A check or balance against what? Basically, against controversies or crimes.
I can think of these two main purposes for a court case.
One purpose is to settle disputes arising from ambiguities in the Constitution, or in the actions and decisions of the Executive, Legislative or Judicial branches of the government, or between individuals or other legal entities.
One purpose is to provide Justice for perceived wrongdoing, serving as a means of establishing guilt or innocence and awarding damages to an injured party.
Generally, the popular view of a court case is to enforce civil or criminal laws.
When used for revenge or for securing advantages, Justice is misused.
[Etymology of “Justice”: Middle English, from Anglo-French justise, from Latin justitia, from justus, “just, upright, righteous, honorable”.]
The Psychiatric Influence
When psychiatry entered the justice and penal systems, it did so under the subterfuge that it understood Man, that it knew not only what made Man act as he did, but that it knew how to improve his lot. This was a lie. Psychiatry has had opportunity to prove itself. The experiment has been a miserable failure.
There is a hidden influence in our courts, one which, while loudly asserting its expertise and desire to help, has instead betrayed our most deeply held values and brought us a burgeoning prison population at soaring public costs. That influence is psychiatry and psychology.
In 1946, Canadian Psychiatrist G. Brock Chisholm [a co-founder of the World Federation for Mental Health and the first Secretary General of the United Nations’ World Health Organization] proclaimed the psychiatric intention to infiltrate the field of the law and bring about the “re–interpretation and eventually eradication of the concept of right and wrong.”
And they did, with the consequence that today, because of their influence, the system is failing. Now it is up to the many conscientious, hardworking and increasingly disheartened people within the system to realize this and rid it of these destructive intruders.
The psychiatric “insanity defense” and its derivatives have done the most damage. The psychiatric industry jumping on the “not guilty by reason of insanity” (NGRI) bandwagon has lead to a massive erosion of public confidence in the justice system’s ability to mete out swift and equitable justice.
“Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity” is defined in the Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 552 Section 30 as “A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if, at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect such person was incapable of knowing and appreciating the nature, quality, or wrongfulness of such person’s conduct.”
Although the insanity defense is introduced in less than 2% of all criminal trials, it is one of the most controversial and hotly debated issues in American and British criminal law.
It all started in 1812, when psychiatrist Benjamin Rush claimed that crime was a mental disease, curable by psychiatry.
Once there was the idea that a person is responsible for his own actions. How is it that we face the absurd situation of psychiatrists testifying to excuse the wrongdoers’ actions? Especially in view of the fact they have proven beyond doubt their inability to agree with each other, let alone cure anyone.
The late Dr. Thomas Szasz said, “Crimes are acts we commit. Diseases are biological processes that happen to our bodies. Mixing these two concepts by defining behaviors we disapprove of as diseases is a bottomless source of confusion and corruption.”
If a dangerous offense is committed by a person, then the fact remains criminal statutes exist to address this. As Szasz also said, “All criminal behavior should be controlled by means of the criminal law, from the administration of which psychiatrists ought to be excluded.”
Psychiatry’s attempt to eradicate the concept of right and wrong and thereby destroy personal responsibility by inventing excuses for the most flagrant misconduct, undermines the justice system.
Recommendations
1. First and foremost it should be recognized that every person is responsible for his or her own actions and must be held accountable for their actions.
2. State and federal legislators should repeal any laws permitting the insanity defense and diminished capacity pleas.
3. Judges, attorneys and law enforcement officers need to ensure that psychiatric evidence is removed from the courts and that psychiatrists and psychologists are no longer afforded “expert” status.
4. Remove psychiatrists and psychologists as advisors or as counselors from police forces, prisons and criminal rehabilitation and parole services. Because psychiatrists have no scientific foundation for their claims, do not permit them to render opinions about or to treat drug addiction, criminal behavior and delinquency, or to probe for alleged dangerous behavior.
Support CCHR STL’s mission to expose and eradicate violations of human rights by the field of psychiatry by making a tax deductible donation. CCHR STL is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization.
