New-York tribune., 1869-06-01
INSANE or VICTOUSf

A young woman, age 81. beautiful, married,
said TO be the child of wealthy father, was
sentenced, few days since, in the Court Of
General Sessions, for the crime of grand lar
ccny. Her father simply requested the Court
to do something for her." which the Court
did by sending her to the State Prison. She
has been there once before. She has
been once in the Pcnitcntiary for the same
ofcnse and clopcd from that prison with the
keepers son. This is certainly n remarkably
checkered career TO have been run by a woman
Just out of her homage. Furthermore, she has
been examined, it appears, by medical COM
mission, and the medical commission decided
that she was not insane, but simply "viclous.' y
One more fact completes the statement. The
reporter informs us that in Court she sat with
"the tears streaming from her eyes, presenting
"a pitiable spectacle This, we suppose, com
pletes the proof of her "viciousncss"
The reader has now all the facts of the case
of which we are ourselves possessed; and we
think he will agree with us in the opinion that
the decision arrived at by the lawyers and the
doctors is altogether an unsatisfactory one
"ViCiousness" is a pretty general term ho
understand that it means, when oPpheu 10
horses, a natural tendency to bite ana 10 ooi'' 10
rear in front and to kick up behind. III ol
ecccntricty of action, IL may De also applied toa
human being bpf IN such case, will any member
of the College of Physicians and Surgeons be
hind enough TO explain to the world Just where
moral responsibility teasesl We have read
scores of essays on .he subject, and have ex-
amned the testimony of q regiment of Doctors
of Medicine, given in many judicial case. We
have admired their fine distinctions. We have
been duly awed by heir great learning. We
have been bothered by their Greek and Latin
derivatives. But, somehow, we have never been
able TO discover the exact rule by which they
decided the accountability of respondent to
the law. We shoun, indeed, say rules" for
each learned gentleman seemed to have one of
his own and to differ from every other learned
gentleman, living or dead, who had ever given
any attention to the subject. 1t seems to us
that the rules Of Courts Of Justice, both in
England and America, arein a condition of most
disgraceful uncertainty upon the point Of moral
responsibility, and that the subject, as n
science, has thus far hardly been touched A
man may be tried for arson in one Court, and
with one set of doctors on the stand, and
acquitted upon the ground of pyromania, while
with the same general line of testimony, in
another, he would have been convicted. Very
often the unpleasant spectacle is presented of
five doctors swearing to sanity, and of five
other doctors swearing to insanity. The Judge
then charges that if the jurors believe the
prisoner to have been insane. when he commit
ted the deed, they will acquit HIM: "If. on the
other hand, gentlemen. you believe him to
have been in his right mind then You will
"acqult him or find him guilty, according to
your view of the testimony" &c, &c. This
is called chago but if the object of it is to
help the jury nothing could be loss likely to
elect It's purpse. 1t is simply solemn see
saw The july goes out, is duly locked into It's
room, and arrives at verdict through processes
known onlytO God aud itself.
We arc rot We are sOrry 10 say, stating |