A SPECTATOR 'S NOTEBOOK
IT is possible to challenge the Home Secretary's recom- mendation of a reprieve for John Thomas Straffen on the ground that his continued existence is of no benefit to himself and involves a considerable expense, and some possible danger, to society—though in fact the risk of his escaping from any place of incarceration in future is small. But in all the circumstances Sir David Maxwell Fyfe's decision must be approved. His trial raised interesting legal questions as to the admissibility of evidence, but in fact much more fundamental questions are involved. The letters from such authorities on mental aberration as Sir Russell Brain and Professor Wood Jones (the former's, incidentally, a model of lucidity) in Mon- day's Times plainly go to the root of the matter in declaring that what is commonly but loosely termed insanity is a defect of conduct, not of intellect, and that a redefinition and revision of the McNaghten rules (laid down by His Majesty's Judges in 1843 after the murder of Sir Robert Peers private secretary by one McNaghten) is urgent. A great deal has been learned about mental, moral and intellectual perversion in the last hundred and nine years. Even so it is a little startling, though no doubt the fact is incontestable, to find Sir Russell Brain asserting, and Professor Wood Jones apparently agreeing, that a man guilty of a serious crime may have known perfectly well what he was doing and perfectly well that it was wrong, and yet genuinely lacked sufficient moral control to prevent him from committing the act. The verdict "Guilty but insane" often seems merciful, but it is plainly unsatisfactory in the absence of any general agreement as to what constitutes insanity. The suggestion for a Royal Commission on the whole question seems fully justified.
Previous page
