The Republican journal., 1872-04-18
A Just Verdict.

duty to protect the lives and property of
the community by Furnishing those who
commit acts OF violence against either
Our only security lies in prompt and i'm
partial conviction and punishment of the
guilty. The fate OF the Bowdoinham and
Rockland bank robbers has done much to
protect our citizens from the depredations
of those professional thieves who do 50
thriving business in other localities.
When great robberies are so frequently
compromised in our large cities and the
robbers left at large to continue their law
less deeds, it is credit to our officers Of
the law and other officials that no induce
ments have availed these thieves. We
may also congratulate ourselves that
human life is sacred and shall not be taken
with impunity.
In the Hoswell murder case last year
the Jury rejected the tlimsey excuse Of
''transitory mania,n or the theory that 4
person may be perfectly sane the moment
before and the moment after committing
the act OF killing, but conveniently in
sane at the instant the act was committed.
This theory constituted the sole defence IL
the Cole-Hiscock murder trial in New
York a few years since, and the Jury be
lieved, or protested to believe the theory
and acquitted the prisoner.
The defence set up in behalf Of Little
at the trial in Rockland was homicidal I'M
sanity. or as the experts who testified at
the trial expressed it, "maniacal delusion
with homicidal tendencies" Here was 2
man fifty years Of age, in regard to whom
there had been no suspicion Of insanity
either by his own family towards whom
he had, for years, pursued course NJ
abuse almost systematic, nor by the work
men with whom he daily abored ana
boarded That White met his death by
the hands OF Little there can be no doubt.
That the deed was perpetrated without
provocat;on is not denied. The only plea
for the accused was insanity. 1t was
claimed that he had been subject to manie
for years, though up to the time of the
murder even those most intimate with hir
never suspected that such was the case.
1t was left for his counsel to suggest the
existence of insanity and for experts Il
testify to it, His brutal conduct towards
his family his neglect to provide for those
dependent upon him and his freaks Of
drunkenness are set up as proofs Of in
sanity.
Sensible, unscientfc people will agree
with the Attorney General that the whole
sum OF the matter is this: The man was
a Jealous, ugly, and suspicious man. who
had abused his family for wears and had
killed man without cause or provoca
ton and without warning But experts
are introduced and swear that the man
was insane To be sure they say he was,
at the time Of the murder, capable Of
Judging between right and wrong knew
he was unlawfully taken the life of a
human being-but still was insar G.
We repeat that it is a matter Of cOngrat-
ulation that the Jury, throwing aside the
thin veil by which it was attempted "a
screen the criminal. convicted him OK the
crime of which he was 50 fully proven to
be guilty. The verdict viii serve as a
warning to those afflicted with 'maniacal
delusion with hCmicidal tendencies 10 de-
sist from their murderous intentions until
iuries can be found as metaphysical
as the professional men who are always
called to testify as experts in such eases
Human life is so sacred that we can afford
to lose none Of the safeguards which the
law has thrown around it. We trust that
our iures will continue to do their duty
fearlessy, and that the time may never
come when murderers shall walk our
streets protected from the hands of
Justice by the plea OF "transilory mania -
or ii is fact that would be remarkable,
in each case is always the excuse and
never the reason for acqnittal, that after
acquittal no restraint is ever placed upon
the fortunate victim Of this convenient
malady. While the murderer is acquitted
the maniac is let loose upon society.
We do not wish to be understood as
casting any reflections upon either OF the
experts who testified at the trial of Little.
They are men OF high standing in their
profession, and doubtless testified accord
ing to their honest convictions. Every
one familiar with trials in court, under
stands how little the testimony Of experts
can be relied upon. The late Judge Davis
of this state at the trial OF cause be-
fore him once said IF there is any kind
of testimony that is not only of no value.
but even worse than that, it is, in nv
judgment, that Of medical experts. They
may be able to state the diagnosis of the
disease more learnedly; but upon the
question whether it had, at given time.
reached such stage that the subject of it
was incapable of making a contract, or
irresponsible for his acts, the opinion of
his neighbols, if men Of good common
sense, would be worth more than that of
all the experts in the country. ~** In
this, as in all other cases, theories must
yield to facts"
The reason of the unreliability of the
testimony of experts. is that they are call
ed upon to testify upon matters of opinion
simply, and the more abstruse the science
in which they profess to be experts, the
greater the differences of opinion When
experts in cases OF insanity include Ma
poleon Bonaparte, Martin Luther and DR..
Johnson, in their category of insane men,
as did DR.. Fisher at the trial of Little,
what criminal would be convicted if the
testimony Of such witnesses should con-
troll the verdict of juries?