The Middlebury register. [volume] (Middlebury, Vt.) 1850-1882, 1876-02-01
Mllooleburg 8eglster.
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1876.
Punishment and Insanity.

What measure Of responsibility should
attach to temporary and emotional iDsan.
ity is question which ought to engage
the attention Of the learned professions
and all who arc competent TO form intel.
ligent opinions upon such abstruse sub
| jects. The whole matter should be made
the subject OF discussion until something
like defniteness is arrived at. 1t is only
few evening since that the attention of
Middlebury people was called to this sub.
ject by reference in the way Of ilustra.
ton by Rev, Mr.. Washburn to the Cole.
Hiscock trial, during which one Of the
jurors asked the judge it he co nsidered it
possible for the responder 10 be perfectly
sane one minute before the act Of killing
and equally so one minute afterward and
yet be SO insane as to be irresponsible at
the moment Of committing the deed TO
which the judge said he thought it posi-
BILE, The whole case turned here and
Cole was found mot guilty" of murder
The termination of the Scannell. Donohus
tragedy case, at New York, is also just now
announced. 1t appears that in the trial
John Scannell was found technically mot
guilty" on account of insanity, and he was
sent to an insane asylum. But now, after
few months, commission has decided
that he is not insane and he must be dis.
charged and 60 he goes forth to become
again "insane" and cndanger the lives and
peace of a community. 1t is q notorious
fact that of the multitude of trials for
murder in this country during the las:
few years, when the homocide was readi.
ly provable, the defense has been, in o
majority Of the cases, plea of insanity,
And from the frequency of acquittal upon
that ground we must conclude that jurors.
it not judges, are quite ready to find their
way out Of an unpleasant dilemma through
this compromise They recognize the
solemn responsibilities that are upon them
in passing upon the life of fellow being.
Their verdict, if guilty" will make them
parties to a judicial homicidc-we had
almost said murder. And if tho plea Of
insanity and the dust OF legal controversy
has at all confused their ideas, or if their
sympathies have been aroused for the pri.
soner at the bar, they naturally seize upon
the insanity plea as u relief in their per.
plexities, often when it is apparent to
everybody else that the plea is only a
subterfuge. We may well question the
rightfulness of o legal system that has
tendency to bring Jurors into slch a
dilemma. If imprisonment for life were
the legal penalty for murder We should
have fewer verdicts Of insanity and less
immunity from the restraints which ought
to gather around tho violation oflaws for
the protection of human life.
But whatever we may think upon that
subject, the laws are definite enough and
no discussion would now be of practical
value, while the other question OF the
measure OF responsibility in cases Of emo
tional insanity has not been settled either
by law or uniformity of precedent. Each
jury is allowed to fix its judgment accord.
ing to no rule or previously determined
principles Of right or wrong, but accord.
ing to some hastily formed prejudice or
suddenly developed sympathy, We ought
not longer to meet this issue in such i'm.
portant cases as the trial Of q man for his
life, without well.dcfned opinions upon
the philosophical principles involved OF
, a settled rule of legal propriety.
The question might be put in this form
Is that kind of insanity which only
, operates under some special and ntcns,
. erci.ement of nature tn free the subject
of it from responsibility for bis acts2 l
not the plea Of insanity amounts to moth
ing The guilty man is responsible fol
his deed and he must take the conse
t quences. But if the negative Of the pro
. position is taken there comes IN another
e element to help make up our opinion a
to the duty of jurors.
e If the subject of emotional insanity i
y morally irresponsible does that take ava,
the right of community to ample pro
> lection? The object of capital punish
ment is the prevention Of crime, II cal
n be nothing else. Punishment as such i
! no affair Of ours as human beings, whethe
q . single or aggregated in communities w
e have no right to take life or infict an
y other punishment upon fellow bein
al simply because he deserves it. Our iigh
,e to infict punishment upon human being
h or to subject them to restraint lie, rathe
d in our right TO self protection Accord
j. ingly, if we have any right to take life q
K all, it must be Gully incidental, as nece'
" sity for the protection of life. But W
-. need protection from insanity just as nuc
as from diabolism. The only questio
le then remaining is whether persons subje'
s, to emotional insanity are in any degre
It. susceptible to the influence of fear
~ penalties, First, will a wholesome ier
II, of penalties reasonably sure to follow II
no he the commission of crime have a tendent
ch to check the person under the immedia