Asylum (SPOILERS)


Something doesn't quite make sense to me.

I am happy to say I don't have any first-hand experience with the judicial system and, specifically, the punitive use of psychiatry. All my knowledge is based upon movies, books, reports of trials, etc. So I might be wrong about this. But it's been my impression that when someone who committed a killing (not to say murder) ends up in an insane asylum rather than prison, that is not, strictly speaking, a sentence. If the defendant is found to be criminally insane, he/she is then sent to a psychiatric facility to undergo treatment for an unspecified amount of time, and may be released if/when a special commission finds him/her cured and no longer a threat to society.

None of that came across in the movie. The man never mentioned having pleaded insanity as his defense; his defense had been that it had been a mercy killing based on his wife's own wishes. It also seemed he had simply been sentenced to two years in the asylum, and literally the moment the two years were over, he was automatically released - no assessment to determine whether he was fit to rejoin society, just the one person seeing him to the gate. Does this ring true to anyone?

reply

I see what you mean but I think you are viewing a 1940s American film directed from a Englishman's book directed by an Austrian through 21 century eyes.

I think that he was given a period in a mental asylum rather than a jail sentence as an act of mercy?
I doubt the details of the British justice system were of much concern to Graham (Commie / Catholic)Green never mind the Hollywood screen writer.
Psychology seems to have been not much respected in Britain way back then and it could be argued that it is not much more respected now

The whole film is weird and non of it makes sense if you look at it too closely,but it looks great does it not,big huge rooms,rain,great cars and clothes,of course non of it looks much like 1940s Britain.

reply