The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1851-12-20
For The Cecil Wing.
DRUNKENNESS,
No Excuse Cor Crime.

No kXcetSc ZOE crime.
1t has been frequently alleged in the case of
CHM, that being under the influence of liquor
when he committed the act, he should not re-
ceive the full punishment due to that class of
CRIME Bclng no advocate Of Sansninary laws:
having some serious doubts about the authority
of mankind TO infict the punishment Of death;
yet must dissent from the doctrine, that drunk
ennesS can be urged in cxlenuaicn of crime.
If drunkenness could be considered in pallia-
ton of crime, then ebriely could be easily coun-
forfeited, and made cloak Tor the commission
of atrocious offences. GA drunkard'' saws Sir
Edward Coke s'who is roiuAilrius damon.
hath no privilege thereby; but what hurt or i'll
soevcr he doth, his drunkenness doth asarayate
it, Although the drunkard may draw upon
himself many diseases of body and mind, vet if
he, in his moments OF intoyicaion commit any
crime or miSdcmcanor, he is am"nahle to the
pains an Ie allies Of the law. Qe is indeed
worse oil tian sober persons, i0ElIunkenness is
held to aggravate every offence, and is not re-
cardcd in eNtcnuattrn Of crime. In legal prac-
tice il is held as a MAXIM "thal those who pre-
sumo 10 commit crimes when they are drunk,
must submit to punishment when sober
This state Of law has come down TO us from
antiquity, for in ancient Greece it was dccyecd
by illacus, ''that he who committed a crime
when intoxicated, should receive double pun
lShment,' one for the crime itself and the other
for the ebriet! which prompted INTO commit it,
fla man sign bond or note in a state Of
drunkenness, he is bound in law for the pay
mcnt thereof, unless il be proven that he was
nchriatcd by the collision or continuance of the
person TO whom IKE bond OF note was given.
If the mind b. permanently alicnated from
drunkenness, there IL no doubt but that the plea
OF insanity could be sustained; hut if the fit of
insanity only ccninnc while the effects of the
liquor remain, and the individual is well aware,
III his sober moments, Of the effects which the
use Of liquors invariably produce on him, and
he persists in their use, and under the mental
arrangement produced thereby. commits yio-
lation OF law, he cannot certainly avail himself
# the plea Of insanity.
There is no doubt but that drunkenness is
frequent cause of mental drrangcmcnt. bat it is
oUly WHEN il las produced "a state Of mini per-
iectIy akin 10 INSANITY Tat it can be alleged
in mitigation of punishment, and the line be-
tween iutoXica,iOn and insanity may in some
cases be difficult to define.
The io!ow.D. case in point, is from Beck on
Medical Jurisprudence:
civilian II 'Donough was indicted and tried
f'r the murder Of his wife, before TIE Supreme
Court Of the State Of Massachusetts. in Novem-
b"r 1914 Itappcared in testimony that sevora,
years previous he had received a severe injury
oIthc head; that although relieved of this, vet
lis effects were such as occasionally to render
him Insane. At these periods he complained
greatly ofkiS head. The use Of spirituous H.
qucrs Immediately induced return of the par
oIySnls, and in one Of them, thus induced, he
murdered his wife. He was with great proprie
ly found guilty. The roiuntary use ola stimulus
which, he was fully aware, would disorder his
mind, fully placed him under the power Of the
mw.''
1t would be we'll for the votarics of strong
drink to remember, that under It's influence the
most heInous offences are committed; that men,
stimulated thereby perpetrale crimes, which in
their sober moments they would shudder 10 con-
template; that although their darling beverage
wcakcns their motives to do right and strength
ems their prcpensities TO do wrong, and thus dis
poses them TO the commission of crime: yet their
intcXicaion affords them no plea in extcnua,ion
OF punishment, but onl! aggravales the offence.
RAMBLER