Mad‐Doctors in the Dock:. Defending the Diagnosis, 1760–1913 Joel Peter Eigen. Baltimore, MD.: Johns Hopkins University Press (2016) 224pp. £35.97hb ISBN 9781421420486

Abstract

The role of ‘Mad-Doctors’, alienists, criminal anthropologists, criminal psychologists, criminalists, psychiatrists and psychiatry in the courts, and their influence on the rule of law have throughout the last 40–50 years accumulated quite a large literature in history, law and the social sciences. The modern metamorphosis of thought on knowing right from wrong, the development of medical diagnoses from labels such as moral insanity and moral epilepsy to modern-day psychopathy have attracted the interest of historians, criminologists, and legal scholars. This is a fruitful interdisciplinary field, yet also, at times, quite a politically-contentious research area. Joel Peter Eigen's Mad-Doctors in the Dock is the final volume of a trilogy that started with the 1995 publication of Witnessing Insanity: Madness and Mad-Doctors in the English Court (Eigen 1995). The focus of his latest book is on the emergence of the diagnosis homicidal mania and its reception (see especially Chapters 5 and 6), but also more generally concerns the rise of forensic psychiatry. Since the publication of Foucault's Madness and Civilization, much scholarly attention and debate has been devoted to the history of notions and treatment of insanity, but rarely have scholars, whether sympathetic or critical, looked with any sustained concern beyond the narrow world of medical authorities. The related study of insanity in law has similarly confined its purview to leading cases, such as McNaughten's. This estimable book breaks new ground by looking outside the medical realm and beyond major cases. (pp.375–6) The ability to look at the court and legal process without having too myopic a focus on medical authorities remains one of Eigen's most important contributions to this area of research. His impressive work stands as a vital empirical corrective to much literature that fails to clearly provide a balanced presentation of how much power ‘Mad-Doctors’, alienists et al. actually exerted in the courts and on the rule of law. As Eigen puts it, although the ‘Victorian alienist became a regular cast member in the Old Bailey drama … he would have to earn his hour upon the stage’ (p.10). That the testimonies and scientific perspectives of ‘Mad-Doctors’ were often challenged is per se not a novel finding, but Eigen manages to bring out important nuances and presentations of the diverse actors and forces involved in cases of insanity and criminal justice. Eigen's source material covers 994 trials collected in over a 20-year time span, this in contrast to the majority of research which still most often uses examples from singular (or few court) cases. Eigen's Mad-Doctors in the Dock should be compulsory reading for those interested in understanding the development of English insanity defences and trials in the 19th Century especially. It is a pity, however, that he does not explicitly, in this final part of his project, engage more with the role and influence of the psychiatric professions in the courts examined by former researchers in this area. While, in the introduction, he acknowledges the support and influence of scholars such as Nigel South and Andrew Scull (to mention just a couple) and testifies to inspiration from historical sociologists, he abstains from reflecting on the meta-positions which, arguably, exist in the research on the influence of psychiatry in the courts. However, it would be bad form to critique a text for what is absent when there is so much to appraise. Eigen's trilogy will, for a long time, undoubtedly stand as among the most important contributions to the history of insanity trials in English courts. When it comes to what, in this review, is considered lacking, hopefully this is something we will get to look forward to in his later publications.