Numerous court decisions have had a material bearing on the subject of responsibility. It has been held in New York that partial or incipient insanity is not a sufficient defense if there is still an ability to form a correct perception of the legal quality of the act and to know that it was wrong. (People vs. Taylor, 138 N. Y. 398, 407 (1893)). A weak or disordered mind is not excused from the consequences of crime. (People vs. Burgess, 153 N. Y. 561, 569 (1897)), etc. Generally speaking, the legal methods of determining criminal responsibility do not vary to any material extent with the different states. It is obvious that the responsibility for crime as defined by the courts is far from harmonizing with the conception of competency entertained by the medical profession. To the psychiatrist, if the criminal act is the result of the mental condition it constitutes a symptom of the disease process. It is readily apparent from even a very brief reference to the statutes that a person concededly suffering from paranoia, general paresis, dementia praecox or any other well-defined psychosis is still criminally liable for his insane acts within certain limitations. From a medical point of view the existence of a psychosis, if associated with a consequent judgment defect, emotional instability, disturbance of volition, intellectual deterioration, delusional and particularly persecutory control, hallucinatory trends, ideas of reference, etc., is of itself quite sufficient to explain criminal acts in the insane. This, however, as has been shown, is not the legal point of view. The accused is fully responsible unless it can be shown that he is suffering from such a defect of reason as not to appreciate the quality or nature of his act or that the act is wrong. There is no other legal standard. It is a well-known fact that many persons adjudged insane by the courts and committed to our institutions are fully competent to discriminate between right and wrong from an ethical point of view, although legally held to be incompetent and unsafe to be at large. These divergent viewpoints presumably are due to the fact that the law moves only with a degree of dignity which theoretically guarantees absolute security in avoiding any possible sources of error. It nevertheless is responsible for many miscarriages of justice. Efforts to remedy this state of affairs have been made repeatedly by the medical profession. The American Psychiatric Association has devoted a great deal of time and attention to this subject, unfortunately without any very concrete results. The last official action taken was the unanimous approval of the following resolutions:—[81] "Resolved: 1. That the proved rarity of wrong acquittals on the ground of insanity is the strongest evidence that the abuse of the insanity plea in criminal cases has been unwarrantably exaggerated.