◆ SpookStack

ry ane ato ioe a) ' — Oe eer iad ome La, ‘eathection between elvil commit- ments and those under the erim- inal insanity law. The need fer’! prompt confinement pending’ bb-_ servation of the patient’s mental condition. the Government ar- gues, is far more compelling in a case where the individual has committed anti-social acta and may very well contimus to Ao fs] unless treated. Contending that « pre-commit- ment hearing after s verdict of acquittal on insanity erownds is not required on ConstituGonal grounds, the Government ‘brief points out since 1800, judges have been ordering those acquitted on grounds of insanity to be heitt in custody as dangerous. Implicit tn the determination of not guilty | by reason of inganity, the Gov- ernment argues, ig the finding | that the defendant actually com tted the acts with which h as Charged. j Expert Testimony = «tay. © «To underline the difference be- tween the mental patient who goes through elvil procedure and , the one who goes through crim- ; inal courts to Bt. Elizabeths, the | Government cites one of the many experts who testified in Congress for the mandatory commitment law. { “A man who is in a hospitat 4 because he bas committed a crime i for which he has been exculpat- ed," said Dr. Manfred §. Gutt- : macher, one of the Nation's lead- ing authorities on criminal in-— sanity, “ls @ different individual | from the individual who has been sent there as a mental case.” That's one of the mafor points: the Government will argue when the~-upreme Court heaswthe geso latae thie manth Deo SRE Laie Be, re