Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1843-08-08
PLEA OF INSANITY IN CRIMINAL CASES

We had occasion some time since 20 advert 10 the
frequency with ~hich allie nai'on oil mind begins TO be
set M as : defence in criminal cases IN England as well
as IN this country AND The fact, thai there the atien.
ton of Parliament and o! the JUDGES has been called
10 the necessity Of guarding against the abuse OF 'hat
plea. The House OF Lords, II will be remembered
desired those lodges, who, ss chefs OF Inc bn'ish
Courts. have seats IN that body, 20 consider OF the pre-
sent state OF The law as 10 tbs matter, and INFORM the
House whe.ae. j, afforded sufficient guards against the
humane tendency OF the times, which enables Courts
aud Jeies 10 D. so often worked upon By pretended
proofs OF madness.
The Judges have accordingly given their answers to
the several points OF the question and, a. opinions OF
The highest weight on a Legal matter OF great interest,
we place them before our readers lNat. Int.
house OF LORDS, JusE -, 1913.
The House Of Lords met ;h!s morning al II O'Clock
to hear The opinions Of the Judges on several questions
relating to crimes committed By persons supposed 10 De
insane or afi Icted with m~onomania. There vas a full
attendance Of Peers, amongst whom were Lord Brough-
am. Lord Co,tenham, Lord Melbourne, Lord Camp.
bell. Lord Wynford. and Lord Kenyon, and others.
HIS Majesty, the King OF Hanover was also present,
and sal On The woolsack BY the SIDE OF the Lord Chan
cel,or. His Maiesiy paid the most marked attention
to the reading OF the opinion OF the Judges BY Lord
Chief Justice Tintal.
HIS Royal H,ghness, the Duke OF Cambridge, was
also present.
Mr.. Justice Maule, at some e rg,b, but in so low a tone
of voice as 10 be almost lnaudlble IN The GALLERY, stated
his rea sons for differing with his learned brethren on the
questions which had been submitted 10 their c%cnsidera-
ton. His lordship was of opinion they were questions
which the judges Of the land ought mol 10 be called up
on 10 answer.
Lord Chef Justice Tindal then rose and s,id, that
her Msiestv's Judges had most carefully and atteI-
lively considered the questions which had been submit
ted 10 them by their ~lordsh,ps, respecting insane per-
sons accused ef crimes, and, with The exception OF ms
learned brother, Mir. Justice Maule, they vera unani.
nous in the opinion which he was then instructed to
road In tho HnnaP IL Uag not necessary on that 0cca-
SION TO enter into the facts of any particular case II
would be wrong 10 do so, as there was such an enc
less variety, all and each attended with such Inproba-
bic and different circumstances, that no general rule
could be laid down. Every case must be decided by
its own particular circumstances. His lordship said,
as the subject was about I com under the considera-
ton OF Parliament the Judges had not lost any time
in considering the questions submitted TO them, and, as
they were unanimous, with the exception, as he before
said, of Mr.. Justice Maule, they did no, consider 1t
necessary to give their opinions Seriatim.
The first question propounced for their consideration
was as follows: "Whot IS The law respecting alleged
crimes committee By persons afflicted with insane de
fusion in respect of one or more particular subjects or
persons; as for instance, where al the time Of the com
mission of the alleged crime the accused knew he was
acting contrary to law, hut did the act complained
Of with a view, under the influence of insane deIu-
SION, of redressIng or reveng'ng some supposed grew
ance or injury, or of producing some supposed public
beneft;:'
With respect to this question the opinion of the
Judges was, that notwithstanding the party committed
n wrong act when laborlng under the idea Of redress'ng
a g supposed grievance or in; ury, or under the impress
sion Of obtaining some public or private benefit, he was
liable to punishment.
Second question "What are the proper questions
10 be submitted 10 the jury, when a person alleged 10
be afflicted with insane delusion respecting one or
more particular subjects or persons, is charged with the
commission Of a crime, murder for example, and lnsa-
n,,v is sci up as a defence
The judges, in answer 10 this question, wished him
TO state that they were of opinion the Jury ought in all
cases to be told that every man should be considered ot
sane mind, unless it was clearly proved in evidence 10
the contrary That before a plea OF insanity should he
allowed, undoubted evidence ought TO be adduced that
the accused was of diseased mind, and that at the time
he committed the act he was not conscious of right or
wrong. This opinion related 10 every case 10 which
a party was charged with an lie gal act, and a plea OF
insanity was set up. Every person was supposed TO
know what The law was, and therefore nothing could
justify a wrong act, except it was clearly proved the
party did not know right from wrong. If that was
not satisfactorily proved, the accused vas liable 10
punishment, and il was the duty Of the Judges so To
tell the jury, when summing up the evidence, &C.
cornpanled with such remarks and obser vations as the
nature and pecuiaritIes of each case might suggest
and require.
W',h regard to the third question, viz ain VIVA,
terms ought the question 10 be left 10 the jury as
TO the prisoners state of mind 1t the time when
the act was committed - the judges did not give any
opinion.
The fourth question was: ali person, under an in.
sane deluslon as to existing facts commits an offence
in consequence thereof, is he Thereby excused.'
The answer 10 this question was, that the Judges
were unanimous in opinion, tha if the deIusion was
only partial, that the party accued was equally liable
with a person of sane mind. If the accused killed
another in self-defence, he wonH be entitled to an &C
quntal; but it committed for airy supposed injury. he
would then be liable 10 the punishment awarded by the
laws 10 bis crime.
With rerpect to the last QUESTION, which was as fol-
lows: "Can a medical man, conversant with The dis
ease of insanity, who never Jaw the prisoner previous
to the trial, but who was PRESENT during The whole
trial and the examination oflll The witnesses. be asked
his opinion as to the state ofthe prisoners mind at the
time ofthe commission of tie alleged crime, or his OPT
MON whether the prisoner was conscious, at the time
of doing the act, that he vas acting contrary TO law,