ABSTRACT
The two quotations, short though they are, are useful reminders of the disputes in court that frequently take place between the law, on the one hand, and psychiatry and psychology, on the other. The issues to be discussed in this chapter are complex and I have, of necessity, had to oversimplify some of them. The complexity of the subject matter is further compounded by the manner in which certain terms are used, often synonymously, by a wide range of people. Because of this, it is necessary, as a preliminary, to comment on the meaning given to such words as responsibility, capacity, culpability and liability. For people often behave like Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty who, it will be remembered, said, "in rather a scornful tone", "when I use a word . . . it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less" (Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 6). This chapter will merely provide a map, similar to those provided by motoring organizations, namely giving an outline of the main contours of a complicated terrain, but deliberately devoid of any fine detail. For the latter, the traveller must turn to the more detailed directions provided by the Ordnance Survey or similar organizations. I trust that the references to authorities cited in the chapter and the list of further reading will serve to fill these gaps. The terrain surveyed in this outline map is divided into the following areas. First, a brief consideration of some of the terms used in discussions of responsibility for crime. Second, a comparatively short historical account of the development of the concept of responsibility and allied matters. Third, a description of the manner in which the law in
England and Wales makes special provision for what can best be regarded as "erosions" of responsibility. Fourth, a brief discussion of a specific aspect of the relationship between mental disturbances and crime as a prelude to the more detailed discussion to be afforded in Chapter 3.
