| Abstract: | The doctor is embarrassed in court when asked to testify to the effects of illness on a defendant''s capability “of appreciating the nature and quality of an act or omission or of knowing that an act or omission is wrong”. The source of his difficulty is traced to the legal concepts of “guilt”, “crime” and “punishment” which imply a legal view of man at variance with our modern biological view. To abolish this discrepancy we need not accept a medical model for criminal law where “crime” is analogous to “disease”, and “punishment” to “treatment”. A pragmatic approach to the handling of the criminal could exclude the notions of “guilt” and “punishment” and yet fulfil the rational goals of protecting society from the criminal and of compensating his victims. |
