Psychiatry and genetics : psychosocial, ethical, and legal considerations / edited by Michael A. Sperber, Lissy F. Jarvik.

Date:
[1976], ©1976
Catalogue details

Licence: Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)

Credit: Psychiatry and genetics : psychosocial, ethical, and legal considerations / edited by Michael A. Sperber, Lissy F. Jarvik. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    202/224 (page 185)
    Legal Issues in Medical Genetics 185 the United States. In People v. Farley both a psychiatrist and a genet¬ icist testified for the defense. The jury found the defendant guilty of rape and murder following the prosecution's argument that he was in a drunken rage when he committed the murder.The court sentenced him to prison for 25 years to life.^^ In Los Angeles, a trial judge disallowed the chromosome defense as admissible evidence. He stated that there was no scientific proof that a double dose of Y chromosomes had made the defendant unable to con¬ trol himself and that allowing this defense might open a Pandora's box. In Millard V. State an XYY defendant was found guilty of robbing with a deadly weapon; he appealed. The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed the judgment of the lower court. The appellate judge concluded, . . . we do not intend to hold, as a matter of law, that a defense of insanity based upon the so-called XYY genetic defect is beyond the pale of proof. . . . We only conclude that on the record before us the trial judge properly declined to permit the [XYY evidence] to go to the jury. ... Thus, it seems that with this decision the door has been wedged open in American courts for evidence of the XYY defense, and more cases will surely come. It should also be mentioned that Richard Speck, the infamous Chi¬ cago murderer of eight nurses, puфortedly carried an extra Y chromo¬ some,although Speck's attorney later announced that his client's chromosomes were normal.^ Uthoff describes the four legal tests which may be applied by the court in an XYY case; (1) M'Naghten's Rule,^® (2) the Irresistible Im¬ pulse Test,^® (3) the Durham Rule,^^ and (4) the Model Penal Code.^^ Only the third and fourth are presently useful with our limited state of knowledge of the cause-and-effect relationship of chromosomes and crime. The Durham Rule (or the Product Test) has included socio- pathic personalities in some jurisdictions (i.e., where his act was the product of some mental disease or defect). The proposed official draft of the Model Penal Code is somewhat more inclusive, stating if he lacks the capacity to conform his conduct due to a mental disease or defect. It is obvious that the locale or jurisdiction will play an impor¬ tant role in the outcome of these cases. Housley points out that the courts have accepted radar tests, drunk-