NEW ENGLAND ASSOCIATION OF SCIENTOLOGISTS FOR REFORM Citizens Commission on Human Rights Psychiatric Violations Cuite # 216 55 Boylston Street Boston, Mass. 02116 6171739-2200 Ext. 518 Regional Commission C.A. BRUSCH, M.D. JOSEPH DEVER, Esq. Notional Research Office National Advisory Board MICHAEL KANANACK MICHAEL SMITH Ph.D. Chemistry COHN FRIEDBERG, M.D. CAVIO JORDON Attorney DR. RAY REYNOLDS Psychiatrist Enclosed please find the Citizens Commission on Human Right's latest position paper on the Criminal Code. I would appreciate any comments on Our recommendations. As I've mentioned before, we would like to see the date of the hearings on the criminal code postponed till at least the first of October to give concerned groups and individuals sufficient time for preparation. Due to the far-reaching effects and importance of the Criminal Code, we also feel your Subcommittee should hold nation-wide hearings at separate locations so that all interested have the opportunity to testify. This position is supported by the National Committee Against Repressive Legislation, the American Friends Service Committee, the Civil Liberties Union of Mass., the American Civil Liberties Union, the Mass. Black Caucus, Mobilization for Survival, the Boston Coalition Against 5.1437, the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, and Fred King of Harvard. Please let me know what you will do to ensure this occurs. CRIMINAL CODE REFORM BEFORE CONGRESS AGAIN IN 1979 Criminal Code reform is again before the U.S. Congress in 1979. The Subcommittee on Criminal Justice of the House Judiciary Committee for the 96th Congress has been holding meetings concerning criminal code reform this year, and on July 13, 1979, their "Rough Working Draft" was released. In general, this draft represents a vast improvement over last year's S.1437 and its predecessor S.1. Although this document is only a draft, it represents some important issues which the Citizens Commission on Human Rights must take a position on at this time. SUBCOMMITTEE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE MENTAL HEALTH PROVISIONS CCHR is now, and has been for the last four years, majorly concerned with the sections of the code dealing with mental competency to stand trial, mental examinations of defendants, the insanity defense, and commitment of defendants due to insanity. There have been steady improvements in these sections since the first draft of S.1; and the final draft of S.1437 and the version released July 13, 1979 by Congressman Drinan's Subcommittee on Criminal Justice represent the two most significant improvements. We would like to commend the Drinan subcommittee for its efforts on these sections and -> its ability to align the mental health provisions with present day knowledge. The mental health section of the bill is Subchapter II, Mental Incompetence, Sections 6121 through 6126. Perhaps the most significant provision falls under Section 6124 which gives the person being treated the right to accept or refuse the proposed treatment, including psychosurgery, electric shock treatment and protracted use of psychotropic drugs. We strongly support this provision, but suggest thattthe subcommittee define "protracted" to a specific number of hours or days - we suggest 1 day and would strongly oppose any time period longer than this due to the extremely powerful effects of some of these drugs, known to cause brain damage, tardive dyskinesia, vomiting, slurred speech, blurred vision, and many other such side effects. The section also calls for written informed consent along with an oral explanation of the treatment. strongly supports these provisions. CCHR CHANGES STILL NEEDED IN THE MENTAL HEALTH PROVISIONS While CCHR does support the above provisions, we feel that major changes will be required in the bill on the following premise. All defendants have a right to a fair trial to determine their guilt or innocence. The hypocrisy of committing a person to a mental institution on the say-so of a psychiatrist is no different from imprisoning him without a trial. Mental hospitals are in fact prisons. The only permissible admission to a mental hospital must be voluntary. CCHR feels strongly that the only considerations of the criminal justice system must be guilt or innocence and the meting out of justice. Therefore, we support the following changes in the bill: (1) remove all psychiatric and psychological testimony from the courtroom; (2) abolish the insanity defense; and (3) remove all involuntary commitment to psychiatric hospitals or facilities from the purview of the criminal justice system, NEED TO ABOLISH INSANITY DEFENSE AND EXCLUDE PSYCHIATRIC TESTIMONY Due to the continued and escalated abuse by psychiatrists alone and defense attorneys in conjunction with psychiatrists, of the legal system, especially the insanity defense, we must take a firm stand to remove all psychiatric testimony from the courtroom. This abuse has occurred as a result of psychiatrists flaunting themselves as "prophets" and brainwashing the American government and public with their falsehoods. If this may seem like a radical stand, please consider these facts: 1. Numerous studies have proven that psychiatrists are not able to predict future dangerousness nor sanity at the time of the crime, better than anyone else. 2. Psychiatrists have numerous times taken both sides in court cases - one side arguing that the defendant is sane, the other side arguing that the defendant is insane or incompetent. 3. At least one study (Langer and Abelson, 1974) has shown that psychiatrists are prejudiced in diagnosing present mental state depending on whether the individual is labelled "patient" or "job applicant." ("Patient" being labelled as mentally ill and "job applicant" being labelled as sane, when psychiatrists viewed identical filmed-interviews.) 4. It is a fairly well known fact among defense attorneys that one can get a psychiatrist to find some degree of insanity in almost everyone. With these facts in mind: the incompetence of psychiatrists and psychologists to provide expert testimony and the availability and willingness of psychiatrists to find nearly anyone to have some form of insanity for purposes of exculpating them, in conjunction with the tendency of the jury to take the psychiatric testimony as 'expert', it becomes apparent that a gross mockery of our legal system is taking place. EXAMPLES OF ABUSE OF THE INSANITY DEFENSE To provide two graphic examples of how this mockery can and does work, let us consider the cases of Dan White and Robert Torsney. Dan White, a former San Francisco Supervisor, was charged with the November 1978 murders of San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and City Supervisor Harvey Milk. White went to city hall with a well-hidden gun and 10 extra bullets. He gained entrance to the building through a window, thus avoiding metal detectors in the doors which would have detected the gun. He shot Mayor Moscone 5 times, reloaded his gun, then shot Supervisor Milk 4 times. As evidence of the gross mockery of our legal system perpetrated by psychiatry, White was not found guilty of first degree murder, even though there was never any question that he committed the killings! He was convicted of voluntary manslaughter. How? Through such psychiatric mumbo junbo as what became to be known as the "twinkie defense", psychiatrists contended that White's eating of junk food was proof of his mental illness. 4 psychiatrists and a clinical psychologist testified for the defense; one psychiatrist testified for the prosecution. The jury's attention was focused on White's "diminished capacity" by the psychiatrists and their verdict reflects their contention that they did not believe White had premeditated the killings is very obvious once the psychiatric fictions are removed. a fact which The second case is that of New York police officer Robert Torsney who shot a 15-year-old boy to death on Thanksgiving Day in 1976. The defense and its psychiatric testimony argued that Torsney suffered from a rare form of psychomotor epilepsy at the time he shot the boy; however, Torsney was never |