The Emporia news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1859-1881, 1873-07-11
INSANE CRIMINALS.

Antoine Leger, in 1924, killed a
little girl at Ferte Aleps in France,
drank her blood, and mutilated
her body. Notwithstanding strong
testimony to show that he was in
sane, he was duly executed. An
tome Jobard, in 1851, stabbed 2
young lady to the heart in Lyons.
His reason was, that being the
victim of certain bad habits which
he could not abandon, he wished
to die without mourning the guilt
of suicide. Medical experts at
tributed his crime to homicidal
mania; but he was found guilty of
murder "with extenuating circum-
stances" and sentenced to the
galleys for life. Jules, at
Bordeaux, had an aversion to his
step-mother. In 1854, without
apparent provocation and without
generalization, he shot her dead
at the dinner table. He was ac-
quilted on the ground of insanity,
and five years afterward blew out
his brains on his stcpmother's
grave.
These three cases are the text
of very interesting and import
ant essay from the pen Of DR..
William A. Hammond, Of which
an early copy is now before us. 1t
is evident that the. difference in
the treatment of the three offend
ers presents gross anomaly. If
Jules was fit to be at liberty,
Leger ought not to have been put
to death and Jobard was unjustly
condemned to Imprisonment. The
history of American Jurisprudence
abounds with difficulties of still
more serious kind. We have
criminals pronounced insane at
the time of the commission of q
particular act, and yet sane i'm
mediately before and Immediately
after. We have murderers set at
liberty on the plea of sort of
tenn porary mania which common
sense lay-men are at a loss to dis
tinguish from the old fashioned
cheat of passion;" and it has al
most become the rule in our GRIM
inal practice that no man shall be
held sane enough to be punished
who has committed a capital of
fence under circumstances of more
than ordinary atrocity, or with
sensational incidents. Everybody
recognizes the greatness of the
evil, and acknowledges that we
must find remedy for it, if soci-
ETY. is to offer any protection to
human life. DR.. Hammond offers
the only philosophical solution of
the question we have ever seen.
His principle is possibly not the
true one; it cannot be adopted
without the sacrifice, not merely
of inveterate prepossessions, but
of humane and honorable inn
pulses. Yet we must admit that
it is difficult to refute his reason
ing, and that the practical work
ing of his theory would prove
highly salutary to the public.
DIR. Hammond starts with the
assumption that the object of the
penal law is not to impose npon
the criminal the just reward of
his offenses against morality, but
to protect society, first by deter
ring others from the commission
of like offensc, and secondly by
preventing the convict from re-
peating his crime. The intention
of the actor regulates the abstract
quality of his action in the eyes of
God, but not in the eyes of the
law. The untutored street Arab
who steals a loaf of bread, and
not understanding the wickedness
of theft, commits no sin in the
sight of Heaven; but he commits
petty larceny in the sight of soci
ETY., which cannot stop to inquire
whether or no he knew that it was
wrong to steal. It is a maxim of
all courts that isnordntid Eegis ne
n,iaem ercusdt. Miss Anthony
was not acquitted of the charge
of illegal voting the other day,
although she undoubtedly believed
that she had a right to do as she
did. Morally she committed no
sin; but legally she was guilty of
crime for which the court pun
ished her. It was abstractly uH-
just to Miss Anthony to fine her
800 for an action which she per-
formed under the conviction that
it was both lawful and meritorious;
but it would be injurious to soci-
ETY. if illegal voters were to be ex-
cused on the ground of ignorance,
and therefore the law is obliged
to punish her. "a law" says DR..
Hammond, ''may be unjust as re-
CARDS an individual or few indi-
viduals, and beneficial to society
at large; it is then a good law.
1t may be just to an individual
and injurious to society at large
it is then a bad law
We readily admit this principle
in dealing with the ignorant and
even with religious fanatics; why
should we ignore it, says DR..
Hammond, in our dealings with
the insane? That the readiness
of our juries to acquit on the
ground of insanity has resulted
in marked increase of homocide
is very common statement, and
though it is not susceptible OF