Summary

Portrait of Tom C. Clark Tom C. Clark Lynch v. Overholser — Dissent

A defendant's plea neither proves nor affects his guilt or his sanity. To make the commitment procedure effective only on the defendant's option limits the statute's protection of the public, forces an unfortunate choice on attorneys appointed to represent defendants, convicts those who are innocent by reason of insanity and deprives them of the treatment afforded by a humanitarian public policy.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Tom C. Clark Tom C. Clark Lynch v. Overholser — Dissent

But insane offenders are no less a menace to society for being held irresponsible, and reluctance to impose blame on such individuals does not require their release. The community has an interest in protecting the public from antisocial acts whether committed by sane or by insane persons. We have long recognized that persons who because of mental illness are dangerous to themselves or to others may be restrained against their will in the interest of public safety and to seek their rehabilitation, even if they have done nothing proscribed by the criminal law.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Tom C. Clark Tom C. Clark Lynch v. Overholser — Dissent

The Court does not deny that petitioner was tried for an offense and acquitted solely on the ground of insanity at the time of its commission. It argues, however, that the procedure of § 24 301 (d) , as applied to a criminal defendant who has not pleaded insanity, is inconsistent with the whole scheme of procedural safeguards provided for commitment of other individuals to mental hospitals in the District of Columbia and therefore could not have been intended by Congress. But the procedure of § 24-301 (d) applies only to defendants found not guilty solely on the ground of insanity.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature