Doubts Far Beyond ReasonnWillard Gaylin: The Killing of BonnienGarland: A Question of Justice; Simonn& Schuster; New York.nby Edward N. PetersnIn the early hours of the morning ofnJuly 7, 1977, Richard Herrin, a noaccountngraduate student, repeatedlyncrushed a hanuner into the head of hisn20-year-old girl friend, Bonnie Garland,nas she lay sleeping in her parents’ home.nThinking she was dead (“Her head splitnopen like a watermelon,” Herrin laterntold police), Herrin fled in the Garlands’nautomobile, leaving a paralyzed andnsemiconscious Bonnie, choking on hernown blood, to lie staring at the ceiling—nfrom which investigators later removednpieces of her brain—for over six hours.nHerrin, meanwhile, drove around sleepingnScarsdale trying to think of ways tonkill himself, though, interestingly, talkingnhimself out of each opportunity as itnoccurred. Finally, around daybreak, thenhalf-naked attacker presented himself atnthe local Catholic church and told a priestnhow he had spent the previous night.nJust seconds after telling officers that herndaughter was sleeping upstairs, Mrs.nGarland’s scream shattered the morningnstillness as she discovered Bonnie awashnin a pool of blood. Bonnie died thatnevening; two emergency operations werenunable to control the devastationnwreaked upon her young person.nHerrin the woman-slayer was chargednwith murder in what should have beennan open-and-shut case. A jury of hisnpeers brought back a verdict of guilty—nnot of murder, but of the significandynlesser offense of manslaughter. Where,nasks Willard Gaylin; where, asksnBonnie’s parents; where, asks a sizablenpoaion of thinking society, is justice?nThere comes to mind no other studynwhich, looking only at a single criminalnMr. Peters is the western director of thenIntercollegiate Studies Institute.n30inChronicles of Culturentrial, more clearly identifies the ignorance,nmisinformation, and outrightndeceit that characterizes the modern insanityndefense ploy. Even if Gaylin, andoctor of psychiatry, stumbles over somenof the convolutions of legal argumentation,nhis overall critique of psychiatricnevidence in the criminal trial is excellent.nStates Gaylin:nCriminal activity is the bete noire ofnthe modern psychiatrist. It is the kindnof human behavior about which he isnmost ignorant, and perversely, aboutnwhich he is called to give the most certainnopinions—in testimony undernoath. The conditions that bind thenrelationship of psychiatry and the lawntoday are such that confusion andncontradiction are guaranteed.nYet when Gaylin turns his sights on thenliberal Catholic community at Yale University—whichnsprang with a nauseatinglynPavlovian response to Herrin’s defense—hisnvision becomes decidedlynfoggy-nOne must not be too hard on Gaylin.nHe and his generation of Americans havenlived through a quarter-century of Berrigannblood-splashers, Kane mutinies,nand liberated bodies enslaved by passion,nall in the name of liberal Cathohcnrenewal. They have borne with “personallynopposed, but…” bishops; sleptnthrough homilists spewing such intellectualnpersiflage as: “Looked at superfi­nIn the Mailncially, Christianity would appear to be anvery external religion”; and wondered inntheir hearts what a “failure to re-enforceneach other” could possibly mean. Butnthe conservative renewal in America willnbe for naught if it does not bring with it ancapacity for critical thinking. Tedious atntimes, frequentiy fmitless, and difficultnalways, yet the responsible commentatornon Western culture must bring to bear onnhis subject that crucial discernment ofnpriaciples and practice. Gaylin’s cuttingncommentary about the Yale Catholicncommunity, fitting target though it maynbe, lacks this identification of principlesnvis-a-vis practice, thus his analysis suffers.nThe religious who answered criticismnof their support for Herrin with “hate thensin and love the sinner” were, as a matternof principle, correct. But ^t prudence ofnraising $30,000 to buy Herrin an attorneynas a means of showing that love isnhighly suspect. GayUn suggests insteadnthat we “hate the sin and punish the sinner.”nHe has recognized—psychologicallynand morally—that to punish thensinner is to love the sinner, a point thenYalies should have at least considered.nBut to assert, as does Gaylin, that everynsinner should be punished, is error.nNor is it possible to flatiy disallow thenright of the Catholic community, or anyncommunity, to come to the aid of an indictednindividual. But those—and notnjust liberal Catholic clergy—who seizenupon the isolated criminal case as a vehi-nTen Presidents and the Press edited by Kenneth W. Thompson; University Press of America;nWashington, DC. Certain vexations just won’t go away.nFacing Reality: From World Federalism to the CIA by Cord Meyer; University Press ofnAmerica; Washington, DC. The final paragraph, which posits the success of democraticnreform in the Soviet Union and an end to forced communist rule in Eastern Europe, beliesnthe title.nAmerican Political Rhetoric: A Reader edited by Peter Augustine Lawler; University Press ofnAmerica; Washington, DC. Irrefutable proof that the Moderns (e.g., Reagan’s 1982 State ofnthe Union Message) have nothing over the Ancients (e.g., The Federalist Papers).nnn