ABSTRACT
In defense of insanity trials, a rule of law defines for the jury the criterion of responsibility that it is to apply in determining the guilt or innocence of the defendant. The findings in the incest experiment demonstrate that under the Daniel M’Naghten rule, jurors are less likely to acquit the defendant on grounds of insanity than they are under V. Durham and the uninstructed versions. Supporters of M’Naghten believe that its emphasis on cognition and morality are consistent with society’s views about responsibility. Supporters of Durham argue that the “product” formula facilitates communication between law and psychiatry and permits medical testimony that is more in keeping with present-day scientific knowledge about the human mind and personality. The authors stated that some legal scholars opposed adoption of the Durham rule because they believed it would seriously limit the function of the jury, making it little more than a rubber stamp to the medical experts.
