, 1872-12-31

the Btantlard By which physicians Judge Ct a
other diseases. The questions to bo decided /
trials whore the defence Of insanity is set u
gro: !. Was the accused insane ut the time G
tho commission of tho offence? 2. Was the in
sanity to such degree as to render tue accuse
irresponsible for tho particular act? 3. IL th
evidence sufficient upon which to acq1t the &C
cused On tho ground Of inaanity? AL Ties
points, Arr. Guernsey claims, whether by physi
cians or jury, must be decided by the SAM
! Btandard-the common senae of, and experience
| among, men. Tho Courts hayo decided, in man,
cases, that medical witnesses should not Civ
an opinion upon the sanity or insanit,
| of q prisoner, as that is, in reality
testifying to the very point the jury must de
| eide, viz, the general inertia Of the case. Mr
cal witness may give his opinion on hypo.
! thetical statement Of facts, and tie jury 1nusl
| Judge whether the supposed facts so stated
correspond with the 1acts as proved in the case
! 20; while the witness who is not IN expert can
not pronounce an opinion Of any sort, but may
state the impression produced upon his mind
BY what he observed on this point. Mr Guern-
sey fortifes himself With numerous Judicial de-
ciaions, and upon their responsibility and his
own Judgment declares that there is no question
'that arises in the administration Of the law
where expert testimony may be less necessary,
md where it should be less controlling On the
jury, and where the common observation and
experience Of MEN should more prevail oyer all
theory, than in cases Of alleged insanity"
A1r. Guernsey closes his very able paper with
few words upon the moral responsibility Of
juries in criminal cases and makes the impor-
tant suggestion that, if any change Is to be made
IN the present mode Of trial by jury in criminal
cases, the question Of insanity should be taken
from legally irresponsible jury, and in all
cases placed in the hands Of responsible
Judiciary, with the same rules OF evidence az at
present. The suggestion seems to us IN emi-
nent1y wise and sensible one. Ne fail to sec
wherein numbers add any force to an opinion or
increase the probabilities of correctness under
the conflicting testimony Of an equal number Of
experts on each aide, the sitting Of which can
be accomplished more readily by jrrist who has
made astudy, to greater or less degree, Of med
1cal Jurisprudence, than by twelve average jurors
Of different minds who have never studied at
al, and to whom no legal responsibility attaches
The most that can be said for the average iury.
II cases Of emotional or intellectual INSANITY, s,
that the testimony Of IN equal number of e1-
perts on each side produces doubt in their
minds, and they legally give the prisoner the |
beneht OF this doubt, lin other words, refuse to
decide ct all where the doctors disagree, and I
acqu@t the prisoner, Or that the bias Of their
minds is to accept the testimony of an Intelligent
physician as to the insanity Of an individual
and. OF course, none who will not 80 testify are
ever called for the accused.
Mr. Guernsey's paper is to be discussed bv tba
hedico-Iegal Society," and it is sincerely to be
hoped that some practical benefit may arise from
the discussion. The murderers plea is meeting
with almost Universal SUCCESS in the courts
IT the United States, and, as tho murderer is
allowed to run at large after tho commission Of
'1s ei1ne and tho succeas OF his Ploa, <,traru
n1ect premium Tor the commission Of murder.
nd an incentive to other men to give way to
heir brutal impulses, and remove those from t
heir paths against whom they entertain 3
rudge, or rho are in any WY disagrceable tn .
hem. t