A Symposium of Comments from the Legal Profession

Olson, Harry F.; Cummings, Homer; Wigmore, John Henry

doi:10.2307/1134809

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since the science is still young and its use as a guide in determining degrees of responsibility is as yet regarded with suspicion, to have done so would not only have resulted in checking further development but would have alienated popular sympathy towards the treatment meted out to these criminals. (Editor, 1924, p. 89) A death penalty advocate, Dean Wigmore of Northwestern Law School, ridiculed this view, saying that 21 is an arbitrary number having nothing to do with culpability, and that the sentence undermined crime prevention (Olson et al, 1924). The magazine World's Work (Anonymous, 1924) took the eugenics position: that the life sentence was fair, but only to the extent that it was carried out, so that the defective tissue of the defendants would not be propagated.…”

Section: Darrow's Argument and Judgementioning

confidence: 99%

Head, Examined: Clarence Darrow's X-Ray Vision of Criminal Responsibility

Weiss¹

2011

The Journal of Psychiatry & Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Shortly after Roentgen's discovery of X-rays and their application to human imaging, the legal profession began to use the technology in litigation. Though the use of brain imaging did not find its way into formal arguments about criminal responsibility early in its evolution, such an analysis has been sought. 19th Century attempts to connect "pathological anatomy" to behavior were mostly disappointing. In 1924, the celebrated murder trial of Leopold and Loeb in Chicago became an early example of the use of scientific testimony that included radiographic exhibits. The penalty-phase decision to spare the defendants' lives was not based on scientific arguments. Sixty years later, the trial of John Hinckley included admission of CT scans to aid psychiatric testimony. Using excerpts from the expert reports and testimony, this article examines the nature and purpose of scientific evidence pertaining to blameworthiness. The author concludes that improvements in neuroimaging will continue to force a dialog between science and the law.

show abstract

Section: Darrow's Argument and Judgementioning

confidence: 99%

Head, Examined: Clarence Darrow's X-Ray Vision of Criminal Responsibility

Weiss¹

2011

The Journal of Psychiatry & Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A Symposium of Comments from the Legal Profession

Cited by 1 publication

References 0 publications

Head, Examined: Clarence Darrow's X-Ray Vision of Criminal Responsibility

Head, Examined: Clarence Darrow's X-Ray Vision of Criminal Responsibility

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About