Law School and Discussions of Mental Incapacity

Please see my original post here.



In 1937 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court referred to a mentally ill woman as "mentally deranged," and "ugly, violent and dangerous" but still found that she could form the requisite intent to commit a battery. McGuire v. Almy, 8 N.E.2d 760, 761, 762 (Ma. 1937). The defendant was mentally ill and struck her caregiver with a chair; she was subsequently successfully sued for battery. Id. at 760. Mental illness, in torts, does not negate intent. Id. at 762.

A schoolteacher took a leave from work after suffering a "nervous breakdown" [sic: words from 1969]. Ortelere v. Teachers' Retirement Bd. of City of New York, 25 N.Y.2d 196 (N.Y. 1969). Ms. Ortelere's doctor diagnosed psychosis; a court found voidable a contract into which she entered while still in emotional and mental distress. Id. at 205. Contracts are voidable when one lacks the mental 'capacity' to form them. Id.

These cases, discussed briefly in my law school casebooks and classes, opened up opportunities to talk about all sorts of ramifications regarding legal intent and defenses in reference to the mentally ill. They created fantastic opportunities to discuss subjectivism vs. objectivism; mutual assent; ability to form intent; and maybe even what it means to be frail (as most of us are, sometimes) in a society that presumes that we are, at all times, strong. The discussions did not get that far, and it's a shame. We only skimmed along the edges of what could have been a deep examination of where incapacity meets volition and what could be considered so disabling as to render a person incapable of contracting (or capable of battery). (Hey, I know it's law school, and I know it's first year, but we're still people living in a society that tries--or should try--to protect those who need protection.)

As Cara points out on Feministe, "stereotypes about disability/mental illness are constantly utilized in attempts to expose the 'fakers' and...the fact that they’re used in this way by people in positions of authority only reinforces the idea that the stereotypes must be true." Such stereotypes sometimes lead to narrow thinking and the assumption that "I'd know if someone was crazy." In America, around one in four individuals has a diagnosable mental illness at any time. When you're sitting in class, and the professor briefly mentions a mental incapacity defense, do you know that a person beside you or behind you or two rows away may be sinking into her chair or his own head? Or he may be sitting tall, knowing that he's living with mental illness and doing just fine, thank you.

Law students become lawyers and lawyers run the country. Attorneys become senators and governors and presidents but also take clients every day through court systems to shape policy and law. That's what I call running the country. And you know what? A large number of those lawyers have some form of mental disorder. They're not incapacitated and they're capable of forming contracts and they probably don't meet most of the stereotypes you have about the mentally ill. Hey, guys, the ReasonableMan--average but not mistake-prone--absolutely does not exist. Please get used to it now; then get to the business of changing the world.