Reviews

THE DEMON DRINK?

Alcoholic Addiction. A Psycho-social Approach to Abnormal Drinking Howard Jones (London, Tavistock Publications, 1963. 209 $9. 301-)

This book reports a study of 72 male alcoholics who were interviewed by a team of graduate social work students in jail or a clinic for alcoholics. I t is not a model of scientific objectivity ; there is no control group on non- alcoholics, and the investigations seem to have been planned in such a way as to make some of the findings inevitable. Apart from the failure to adopt measures eliminating bias from the method, the conclusions sometimes go beyond the evidence presented. For example the finding of a high rate of marriage failure amongst the jailed alcoholics is explained by the assertion that marriage is a stabilising and socialising factor in the life of the alcoholic. Other explanations might equally well fit such facts. These criticisms should not be taken to mean that the book is worthless as it has several good points. Clearly written and easily digested it contains a reasonably balanced review of recent literature on many aspects of the problem of alcoholism. Parts of the book are overloaded with individual case histories but this may be appreciated by the non-clinical reader. The general approach is a psychodynamic one and physical and biochemical factors are rated as only of secondary importance. The findings on maternal overdependence, social insecurity and unfulfilled ego needs in the alcoholic are well covered. While the expert in alcoholism may find many points of dis- agreement, anyone with an interest in the social aspects of alcoholism and crime will find it worth reading.

J. A. Harrington

An Inquiry into Criminal Guilt Peter Brett (London, Sweet and Maxwell, 1963, 228 $9. 551-)

Professor Brett is dissatisfied with current theories of the criminal law. The formal definition of a crime, the distinction between actus reus and mens rea, the attempt to describe mens rea in positive terms and its analysis into intention, recklessness and negligence are some of the main targets for his attack. Crime must, he insists, contain the twin elements of public injury and moral wrong ; and a thing is morally wrong, apparently, if it is contrary to the "community ethic". This is less revolutionary than appears at first, for the overriding norm of the community ethic requires obedience to law. This ethic apparently operates on two levels-e.g., it may regard fornication as wrong, but not as deserving criminal punishment ; and its arbiter is the jury. The current high degree of definition of mens rea tends to limit the discretion of the jury. Brett would extend it.

I t would be wrong to suppose that this doctrine would necessarily be more lenient than current theory. Thus, while Brett convincingly attacks strict liability, he would uphold the result of the leading English case (Prince 1875) because the accused, though he did not know the facts which made his act a crime (mens rea), knew that he was acting contrary to the community ethic. One who mistakenly thought it was incest to have intercourse with his cousin would, apparently, be guilty of attempted incest. Even if the community ethic does not forbid the intercourse, it forbids breaking the law.

28

Brett makes a valiant and admirable effort to invoke "the findings of modern philosophy and psychology" but when he seeks to apply these to the problems of the law, they seem to afford little help. I t is impossible in the space of a short review, to do justice to the author's arguments ; but it seems to this reviewer that what an individual judge thinks may be, and a jury thinks is, contrary to the "community ethic", is too vague and capricious a notion on which to base criminal law.

J. C. Smith

WHY LAWYERS ANYWAY ? The Lawyer in Society James J . Cavanaugh ( N e w Y o r k Philosophical Library, 1963, 82 $9. 3 dollars)

This series of essays on the legal profession as seen through American eyes is the answer to the question posed in the title above. Written, without doubt, for the layman it nevertheless provides food for thought and discussion amongst the legal profession also. The author paints a picture of ethics and behaviour which shows the profession in a very different light to the image reflected by the television and cinema productions of the United States.

The book might with advantage be read by all law students of this country and by the public as well. They will be interested to see how much in common there is between the professions in the two countries and that, to quote, "the total description is unique to lawyers as a group". Consciously or unconsciously the book acknowledges the debt the American law owes to the English Common Law.

The author's explanation of the meaning of the term "equity" is a most concise and understandable item. To reduce this obstruse word to a single paragraph of "words of one syllable" is no mean achievement.

A speaker can find not a little material here on which to build both grave and gay.

W. M. F. Coverdale

GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY ? Law and Psychiatry Sheldon Glueck (London, Tavistock Publications Ltd., 1963, 174 $$. 381-)

The gulf which exists between lawyers and psychiatrists is largely made up of the degree of responsibility which may be fairly attributed to an accused person for his actions, and judges are naturally reluctant, a t least in the present state of the art of psychiatry, to surrender the right to decide in their own courts who is guilty or not guilty, and what is the proper sentence.

Dr. Sheldon Glueck is a noted American authority on criminology, and this book consists of four lectures which he delivered in America during April, 1962. He surveys the whole field of criminal responsibility in relation to "free-will" and defence of insanity, agrees that the McNaghten rules are now outmoded, which is largely accepted today, and suggests far reaching reforms for pre and post-trial treatment of offenders.

Judges will have some misgivings about his suggestion that the court (or jury) should merely decide whether the accused committed the crime, while his sentence should be determined by a "Treatment Tribunal" of judge, psy- chiatrist, sociologist and educator. I t is certainly true that the practice and learning of the law teaches nothing about how to sentence a man, nor do judges receive any training in social welfare, psychology or human behaviour patterns ; but they do receive valuable medical, mental and probation reports which can be called for before sentence, a practice widely used to-day. The protection of society must be balanced so far as it can be with the possible reform of the