Orleans independent standard. [volume] (Irasburgh, Vt.) 1856-1871, 1866-03-16
Intmeperance a Crime.

The title above written is not a mis-
take for "Intemperance and Crime"
as some Of our readers may at first
sight imagine. On the subject last
named we do not propose to write
anything more, as the connection be-
tween intemperance and crime ha
already been made so apparent thai
nothing more need be said in regard
to it. But if intemperance leads to
crime so directly and inevitably, is il
not itself a crime? Can a man inno-
Gently do that which is almost certain
to result in crime? 1.-THE Incorporate
man is more likely than any other to
be guilty Of theftS, assaults, riots, and
every other kind ofmiSdcmeanor, great
and small, does no guilt attach to the
very Ia bit itself OF intemperance,
which is the fruitful mother of such a
progeny OF evil?
We are aware that the idea prevails
to a considerable degree, and is some
what industriously cultivated, that a
man is not fully responsible even for
the crimes which he commits when
drunk. An insane man is not respon-
sible for his conduct and as the drunk
en- man is temporarily insane, it is
argued that he also is not responsible.
The most intelligent and thoughtful
minds, indeed, do hold to the contrary.
The judge on the bench, the lawyer at
the bar, the theolOgian in the pulpit,
concur in maintaining that insanity
produced by alcohol does not lessen in
the least the criminality of a breach
either Of human or divine law. So far
from its being justification or pallia-
ton, it increases the enormity of the
crime. 1t is so at law, beyond ques-
ton. Judge Coleridge, an eminent
English judge, when a prisoner, con-
victed of burglary, urged by way of
extenuation, that the crime was CON-
mltted under the influence of LIQUOR
repIicd-"that is an aggravation in
stead of a justification of the crime
Three-fourths of the crimes committed
III this country are committed under
the influence of liquor" Similar lam
guage has been used by many other
judges in England and America.
1t must be admitted, however. that
looking at the subject simply from
moral point of view, there is some diff
fculty in maintaining the proposition
of Judge Coleridge. On til c one
Land, it is hard to believe that the
man who abuses his wife and children
or murders his friends, while under
the influence Of liquor, and bitterly re-
penis as soon as he comes to his senses.
Is as guilty as if he had planned the
deed in his sober senses, and with
malice aforethought; and on the other
hand, it would be dangerous in the ex-
IRENE not to hold him legally respon-
slble to the very utmost. But in this
instance, as in most others, the correct
view lies between the two extremes.
We must adopt some principle by
which the drunken perpetrator of
crime shall be held responsible to the
fullest extent for his evil deed, while
at the same time the insanity of drunk
enness shall release from responsible
ty as completely as any other insanity.
That principle is this: the dethrone-
ment Of reason which takes place in the
drunkard, and which for the time is as
real and as complete as in the perma- |
nent inmate of an insane ASYLUM. is
brought upon himself by his own free |
act and in the exercise of his own
free will. 1t is self imposed insani- |
ty, a needless insanity, and therefore
criminal insanity. The mans insan- |
ity is itself his guilt. He has no right
to be insane in that way, but is under
the strongest obligation to retain his
soundness ofmind till he is deprived
OF 1t by a power and authority higher
than his own. BY applying this prin-
clple, we exonerate the maniac. while
we hold the man responsible. We
carry back the guilt till we reach the
intelligent cause of the action. and
there we fasten the guilt in all its
enormity.
Ii the man who in state of insan-
lty commits crime was once rational
and has wilfully brought insanity up-
on himself, the guilt of that crime was
contracted whenever he knowingly and
voluntarily destroyed his reason. A
man, while insane with rum, ouarrels
with his friend and kills him. The
guilt OF that murder does not lie in
the mere act of killing, for the mur.
derer was for the time an irresponsi
BILE maniac. 1t lies in the fact that
being sober, intelligent, and sane. he
made himself drunk, senseless, insane
in becoming drunk he was not guilty
OF mere indiscretion or of yenial
fault; he was guilty of murder. Bv
the act of drinking himself crazy. he
set fire to brain the other end of