Email | Print

To the Editor:

Garth Harding's article, "Clubhouses for Ongoing Support" (April-May '02 issue) was a good description of clubhouses, which, however, contained an error regarding the application of people with criminal histories to clubhouses.

Because of the importance of maintaining safety for the members of clubhouses, an individual with a recent history of being incarcerated for a crime of violence is not acceptable to the Fountain House clubhouse. Individuals with a history of drug or alcohol abuse must have maintained three months of living clean and sober, before they can be accepted into the Fountain House clubhouse. Kenn Dudek, Executive Director of Fountain House, states that an individual's past history of incarceration for a non-violent crime is looked at by the Fountain House Intake Department on a case-by-case basis. If the crime was committed a long time ago, was non-violent, and does not pose a current threat to the Fountain House membership, the applicant may be accepted.

Rigorous screening of applicants for clubhouse membership is necessary for the safety and well being of both the members and staff of Fountain House. The most important assurance is that any new member can feel as safe and comfortable in the clubhouse as they do at home with their family and friends.

Iris J. DeLorenzo New York, New York

To the Editor:

I really enjoyed the latest NYC Voices newspaper. Although we all receive criticism for things we do I appreciate your openness to include the letter from Marvin Spieler about the Project Liberty insert. I also enjoyed the short article by Becky Roser about Winston Churchill ("Working for the Common Good…."-Apr-May '02 issue) doing for others gets you out of yourself.

I hope NYC Voices will continue to seek new writers, artists, and find reporters who are in recovery through taking risks, accepting help, becoming less anxious or worried and more focused in their lives. I always enjoy hearing people becoming empowered through good relationships. Becoming open to change is a little scary and a little exciting. My deepest sympathies go with your Editor-in-Chief Daniel Frey on the passing of his father ("A Lesson From Jacob," and "Tribute to…."-Apr-May '02 issue).

Diane Fisher New York, New York

To the Editor: I would like to clear up some misstatements about the insanity defense found in Joe Glazer's article ("Andrea Yates Verdict: The System is a Failure"-Apr-May '02 issue). One does not have to plead guilty to the crime when one pleads the insanity defense. Every crime consists of two parts, a physical act and a mental plan. When one pleads the insanity defense, one denies the mental thought behind the crime. Insanity is an affirmative defense. In affirmative defenses one admits to the physical act but denies the mental state.

The McNaughton Rule, which states that for a defendant to be found insane, must be suffering from the disease of the mind and s/he must not know nature or quality of the act or not know right from wrong. The right from wrong test has two parts. Did the defendant know the act was intellectually wrong or morally wrong? Some states use both aspects of the test, while others use only one of them. It was unclear from the media reports what the law in Texas was.

Mr. Glazer's article would lead one to believe that the McNaughton Rule is the only rule for insanity across the nation. Fortunately, many states including New York have modified McNaughton. The American Law Institute Model Penal Law says that the defendant can be found not guilty if they lack substantial capacity to know right from wrong. This is not as strict as pure McNaughton where the defendant must have no capacity to know right from wrong. Texas uses pure McNaughton where the defense has to prove "absolute certainty" that the defendant could not tell right from wrong due to disease of the mind.

There are other rules for insanity besides McNaughton. Under Irresistible Impulse defendants could be found not guilty even if they knew right from wrong but they suffered from a disease of the mind that prevented them from controlling their conduct. The test exists in both a traditional absolute inability to control one's actions or merely substantial capacity to do so.

Another rule is the New Hampshire or Product rule. Under the rule, a defendant can be found not guilty if the crime was primarily caused by a disease of the mind. As in Irresistible Impulse and unlike McNaughton, the defendant can know right from wrong and still be found innocent.

Even if a defendant does not plead insanity, psychiatric evidence that s/he lacked the proper mental state to commit the particular crime can still be introduced. If successful this effort would lead to the charge being reduced. Psychiatric evidence can be introduced to show that the defendant was unable to premeditate a murder. If successful, the charge would be reduced from murder to manslaughter.

One of the problems with Product is that it relies too heavily on psychiatric opinion without real legal standards. Courts and legislatures feel uncertain on how to view insanity under the criminal code. Until the mental health community speaks with more unity and certainty, it is unrealistic to expect the insanity defense to be expanded. The insanity defense remains one of the most difficult defenses to prove.

David C. Kaplan New York, New York