The Penitent (TCG Edition) Page 4
CHARLES: Am I to be persecuted because of my religious beliefs?
ATTORNEY: Why, if they are your beliefs, should you be reluctant to announce them?
CHARLES: Shouldn’t that be between myself and God?
ATTORNEY: Indeed. Where they concern God. But where they concern other men? Who have the right, according to our law to demand from you a certain standard of conduct? You, in your profession, delve into men’s, men’s motivation. Is that fair?
CHARLES: Yes. I think it is.
ATTORNEY: Now, you have often. In the past, testified as to the motivation of defendants.
CHARLES: That’s correct.
ATTORNEY: Why?
CHARLES: As . . .
ATTORNEY: Yes? Please?
CHARLES: As I believe them entitled to defense.
ATTORNEY: And you believed these defendants’ motivation, or “states of mind,” might, through your testimony, mitigate a legal penalty. Is that correct?
CHARLES: I testified as I thought right.
ATTORNEY: Of course. But you were paid to testify. To your opinion.
CHARLES: Yes. I was paid.
ATTORNEY: And you examined these patients. Prior to sharing your opinion.
CHARLES: Of course.
ATTORNEY: But the opinion, of course, was determined prior to the examination.
CHARLES: No. It was not.
ATTORNEY: It was not? . . .
CHARLES: No.
ATTORNEY: You have testified in . . . I’ve noted the number of cases . . . For the defense.
CHARLES: . . . Yes . . .
ATTORNEY: . . . You being paid to render an opinion calculated to exculpate the defendant.
CHARLES: No. That was not my calculation. I’m a doctor. My job . . .
ATTORNEY: Yes, but your “job” which we may define as a specific service you were paid to perform, and which you did perform. “For a valuable consideration.” Was “to get the defendant off.” That’s blunt, but it’s fair. Isn’t it?
CHARLES: We have an adversary legal system. Some countries have cases presented to a judge, appointed to rule.
ATTORNEY: . . . We . . .
CHARLES: “In service of the truth.” Our system pits two opponents one against the other. Each has a plausible interpretation of the facts. The more persuasive one prevails.
ATTORNEY: Exactly. Your job, then, in your testimony for the defense was to offer this “plausible explanation” of facts which would favor the defendant. Or you would not have been engaged. That’s logical, isn’t it? Or they would have engaged someone else.
CHARLES: All right.
ATTORNEY: However, you might have felt about the defendant, or his alleged crime. Yes, we, in court, are bound to consider the defendant innocent unless proven guilty. And our suspicions, or, indeed, our prejudices we labor to put aside. You are under no such constraint.
CHARLES: I am a medical man. My oath . . .
ATTORNEY: Yes. Your oath obligates you to the patient.
CHARLES: . . . That’s . . .
ATTORNEY: “Whatever I shall see or hear, in the course of my treatment . . . I . . .”
CHARLES: That’s correct.
ATTORNEY: “I shall remain silent.”
CHARLES: Yes. That’s the Hippocratic oath.
ATTORNEY: Officers of the court. Are bound by oath, from acting upon prejudice. And schooled to reject the formation of opinions. And confine ourselves to facts. That is our oath. The Hippocratic oath, however, acknowledges that you must form opinions. You call them diagnoses. And adjures you only to keep them to yourselves. Is that correct?
(Pause.)
CHARLES: Yes.
ATTORNEY: Yes. Then you must have had opinions about those many cases in which you testified for the defense. That must be true. Musn’t it?
CHARLES: . . . Have had opinions?
ATTORNEY: As to the “actual” guilt or innocence of those for whom you testified.
CHARLES: My job was neither to indict nor acquit. But to understand their mental state.
ATTORNEY: But you must have thought some of them guilty.
CHARLES: That determination was the job of the courts.
ATTORNEY: Or, perhaps, to put it differently: You didn’t care if they were guilty.
CHARLES: That’s that’s, yes, a less-attractive way of putting it. But, “guilt” . . .
ATTORNEY: . . . You didn’t “care,” or, more attractively, consider it your job. And had no scruples about testifying in support of those who, you may have thought actually guilty of crime.
CHARLES: My concern was not the alleged crime, but the defendant’s mental state.
ATTORNEY: But some of them you must have believed guilty.
CHARLES: I believe that the Hippocratic oath debars me from answering that question.
ATTORNEY: Let me put it differently. Over the years. Would you consider it reasonable to assume that some of the cases in which a doctor had testified. On which, over the years, you had testified. Would it be reasonable, statistically to assume that some, as to whose mental state you testified, must have been legally guilty?
CHARLES: I . . .
ATTORNEY: Or: Is it logical to assume that all of the defendants brought to trial by the State, that every one of them, because of his mental state, should be adjudged not culpable?
CHARLES: I’m not a statistician.
ATTORNEY: Then are you going to sit there and tell me you believe that every case referred to you, that every patient on whose behalf you testified was morally innocent of the crime charged?
CHARLES: Their guilt or innocence was not my concern. It was my job to give, under oath, my opinions as to the defendant’s mental state.
ATTORNEY: As you have said. And you did it, as we’ve said, for money: You were paid?
CHARLES: As . . .
ATTORNEY: Yes, “as is everyone here . . .” And you, put aside your prejudice, or say, suspicions as to their innocence or guilt.
CHARLES: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And never “made up your mind” as to their mental state until after you’d examined them.
CHARLES: That is correct.
ATTORNEY: Did you ever turn anyone down?
(Pause.)
We can subpoena your records.
CHARLES: The records are protected by law.
ATTORNEY: Perhaps, and perhaps not. Many people came to you. To ask you to speak for the defense. Did you ever turn anyone down?
CHARLES: My, my records . . .
ATTORNEY: It appears. You did not. In no case on record did you refuse a defendant’s request to testify. In no case. For pay. Some of whom, at least, must, statistically, have been guilty of crime.
CHARLES: I did the job I was sworn to do. By my lights.
ATTORNEY: At that time.
CHARLES: Yes.
ATTORNEY: But you refused to testify now.
CHARLES: Yes.
ATTORNEY: Which is to say your understanding changed?
CHARLES: It is the case, I believe, that a man, as he ages, may increase in wisdom.
ATTORNEY: What has improved your understanding?
CHARLES: Time.
ATTORNEY: But not solely time. As many grow old, but we must allow few grow wise. Let me ask: Has religion improved your understanding?
CHARLES: Yes.
ATTORNEY: You came to religion late.
CHARLES: That’s right.
ATTORNEY: Recently in fact.
CHARLES: Yes.
ATTORNEY: You were not always religious.
CHARLES: No.
ATTORNEY: Your parents were religious.
CHARLES: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And yet, for most of your life, you were not?
CHARLES: If you raise a child in the ways of the Lord, when he is young, he will not depart from them when he is old. As the rabbis said. But they do not say what he will do in between.
ATTORNEY: “If you raise a child in the Lord’s Ways.” That’s in Proverbs.
CHARLES: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And have you returned to the Ways of the Lord? Recently? In your “age”? Is that correct?
CHARLES: I am attempting to.
ATTORNEY: What is it that prompted you?
CHARLES: Are my religious beliefs not . . .
ATTORNEY: Why now?
CHARLES: I . . .
ATTORNEY: At the same time as the alleged . . .
CHARLES: I don’t know.
ATTORNEY: The alleged crimes of the young man.
CHARLES: I . . .
ATTORNEY: Who was your patient. You turned to religion. Why now?
CHARLES: I’m trying. To live in accordance with the dictates of the Bible.
ATTORNEY: Do you feel that they supercede your responsibilities as a citizen?
CHARLES: The two are not mutually exclusive.
ATTORNEY: Where you feel they are in conflict, how will you choose between them?
CHARLES: I have a conscience.
ATTORNEY: And that conscience comes from where? Does it come from God?
CHARLES: I believe it does.
ATTORNEY: And does that conscience always speak with clarity?
CHARLES: One, being human, and of other-than-divine understanding . . . One sometimes requires guidance.
ATTORNEY: Where is the guidance found?
CHARLES: It may be found in meditation, in study, in prayer.
ATTORNEY: May it be found in the Bible?
CHARLES: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And is that what you’ve discovered, in your return to religion?
CHARLES: I was traumatized. By the boy’s crime. You appreciate that. For all your “performance.” I know you do. And I sought some understanding.
ATTORNEY: What did you come to understand?
CHARLES: That there is a plan. That the plan is unknowable. That we are part of the plan.
ATTORNEY: Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?
CHARLES: I believe that, written by the Hand of God, or Moses, or by those they inspired, the Bible contains divine wisdom.
ATTORNEY: Would you set yourself up to deny the Word of God?
CHARLES: I fervently pray that I would not.
ATTORNEY: The martyrs. Suffered fire and sword rather than denounce what they understood as God’s Will.
CHARLES: That’s right.
ATTORNEY: What have you elected you’re prepared to suffer? To defend God’s Word?
CHARLES: I pray.
ATTORNEY: Yes. That?
CHARLES: That, I, I don’t know the answer to your question. I pray, only, for strength to abide by my conscience.
ATTORNEY: And if that bid you go against the laws of the State?
CHARLES: I believe that’s called “religious freedom.”
ATTORNEY: I will offer evidence that you have never refused to testify for a defendant in a court of law. NEVER REFUSED TO SUPPORT A CLAIM OF INNOCENCE OR OF MITIGATION. By reason of mental or emotional incompetence. Yet. Now. For the first time. In a long career. You have refused such employment. You’ve testified that should you form an opinion, of a patient’s guilt, you never act on it. And yet, you, finally, have turned a patient down. A man under your care accused of a crime. Will you say why?
CHARLES: I reread the Hippocratic oath.
ATTORNEY: What caused you to reread the oath?
CHARLES: My studies.
ATTORNEY: Your studies in religion.
CHARLES: All right, yes.
ATTORNEY: But surely the oath had been before you constantly.
CHARLES: I read it with new understanding.
ATTORNEY: Because you found religion.
CHARLES: Yes.
ATTORNEY: So you rejected the young man’s plea, then, for religious reasons?
CHARLES: If you will.
ATTORNEY: No, that’s what you just testified. That there is a “higher law.” That, in confusion, we must refer to it, and that it is found in the Bible.
CHARLES: If you will.
ATTORNEY: Permit me. “You shall not pervert justice.” You recognize the quotation?
CHARLES: Yes. It’s in Leviticus.
ATTORNEY: And you say it’s the Word of God.
CHARLES: I do.
ATTORNEY: And several pages later, in Leviticus, we find: “A man who lies with another man, as with a woman, has committed an abomination. He shall be put to death.”
CHARLES: Yes?
ATTORNEY: “A man . . .”
CHARLES: I heard you.
ATTORNEY: Is that familiar to you?
CHARLES: Yes.
ATTORNEY: Is it the Word of God?
CHARLES: It’s in the Bible.
ATTORNEY: Do you believe it? Do you or don’t you?
CHARLES: No. I don’t.
ATTORNEY: You don’t.
CHARLES: No.
ATTORNEY: Although it’s in the Bible.
(Pause.)
CHARLES: No.
ATTORNEY: Do you consider homosexuality a sin?
CHARLES: I do not.
ATTORNEY: But yet it’s in the Bible. Do you believe in the laws of the Bible?
CHARLES: The laws, as any laws require . . .
ATTORNEY: Do you . . .
CHARLES: Re . . . They require interpretation. That’s why there are judges.
ATTORNEY: “A practicing homosexual must be killed.” That’s open to interpretation?
CHARLES: Of course.
ATTORNEY: Interpret it for me.
(Pause.)
CHARLES: I’d have to . . .
ATTORNEY: You don’t have an answer?
CHARLES: I would have to . . .
ATTORNEY: Yes?
CHARLES: I would have to consult a rabbinical . . .
ATTORNEY: Prior to that consultation. How have you acted upon that biblical law?
CHARLES: I haven’t acted upon it.
ATTORNEY: But yet you know of it.
CHARLES: Yes.
ATTORNEY: Did it affect your thinking?
CHARLES: No.
ATTORNEY: It meant nothing to you.
CHARLES: That’s right.
ATTORNEY: So we may say you were “unmoved.” May we say that? “Unmoved.” At the situation of those not only scorned but put in peril by the book to the dictates of which you ascribe your behavior. The Bible, which, “uninterpreted,” as you say, licenses, as we speak, the abuse, indeed, the murder of citizens because of sexual preference.
(Pause.)
Is homosexuality a crime?
CHARLES: No.
ATTORNEY: Is it an “abomination”?
(Pause.)
CHARLES: No.
ATTORNEY: Then why have you refused to testify, IN THE SOLE CASE IN WHICH YOU HAVE, IN ALL YOUR YEARS, REFUSED TO TESTIFY? —And after your astounding religious conversion—in support of a patient under your care? I await your response.
SCENE 7
Charles, sitting. Richard enters with a file folder.
CHARLES: . . . All right . . .
(Richard hands Charles a letter.)
RICHARD: You’ve been summoned to appear before the Licensing Board.
CHARLES (Reading): “Unprofessional conduct . . . reflecting discredit upon . . .”
RICHARD: I’m sorry.
CHARLES: That’s their job.
RICHARD: That’s gracious.
CHARLES: What’s the alternative? To go mad?
RICHARD (Referring to the letter): Do you want someone in the office to attend you? It’s not my line of expertise, of course, you should have someone who does it. But if . . .
CHARLES: I don’t know if they allow counsel.
RICHARD: I don’t know either. It says here they’re going to require your files.
CHARLES: I don’t care what they say. I’m done.
RICHARD (Simultaneously): You’re done practicing . . .
CHARLES (Simultaneously): The entire thing is a sham. Who have I, I’ve helped no one; none of us help anyone. I couldn’t help the boy. It’s a loathsome business. I’ve been making m
y living at it; and what has it caused but misery? The State wants to intervene, let them intervene. Is it my job: to say who’s sane? Who’s insane? The boy? Killed ten people, and they’re trying me? And that’s called RATIONAL? For the love of God. I’m done.
(He puts the file folder on the desk.)
These are the boy’s records.
RICHARD: Why do you want me to have them?
CHARLES: Because I lack the courage to destroy them. Could they force you to surrender them?
RICHARD: The parallel may be the old law school test: the criminal comes to seek counsel. And he places a gun on the desk. Which he may have used to commit a crime.
CHARLES: And what are you bound to do?
RICHARD: How is Kath?
CHARLES: You can’t answer my question?
RICHARD: I’ll have to think about it.
CHARLES: I haven’t committed a crime.
RICHARD: Of course not.
CHARLES: So, if I give you the files . . .
RICHARD: You should surrender them, Charles.
CHARLES: I won’t do it.
RICHARD: Is that wise?
CHARLES: I don’t know, but it’s my decision. I’m giving them to you. To hold. And ask you not to read them.
RICHARD: Are those your instructions?
CHARLES: Yes.
RICHARD: I’m your attorney. And I’ll follow your instructions.
(Pause.)
CHARLES: You must think I’m a fool.
RICHARD: I think you’ve been shocked. And humiliated. That there’s no way you can think clearly. It’s time to let the law work. And obey the law.
CHARLES: I should destroy them. But that would be against the law.
RICHARD: That’s correct.
CHARLES: But I won’t “give them up.”
RICHARD: Will you tell me why?
CHARLES: Because it’s immoral. Because I’m being coerced. Into an act I find repugnant. And to submit because of the threats. Of the State. Is cowardice. That the Board wants to discredit me, this is the answer to your question, does not release me from my oath.
RICHARD: They’ll take your license.
CHARLES: I’m giving it up anyway. I’m done.
SCENE 8
Kath is sitting at a small table. She wears a hospital gown. Charles enters. Pause.
CHARLES: How are you?
KATH: Oh. Is that what one says?
CHARLES: I don’t know what one says.
KATH: But you’ve been here before.
CHARLES: Not here.