New-York tribune., 1876-01-05
RESPONSIBILITY OF TIE INSANE

The recent murder in a hotel of this city,
with the subsequent intimation that the muir
dcrer was not of right mind, has only strength
ened our conviction of the necessity as well
AS Justice of revising our methods of dealing
with insane violence. The verdict of " Not
Guilty by reason of Insanity" has been 80
often repeated that it is now confidently antici-
patcd and icstngy received. Where so much
Is left To the discretion of jurics the rule of
law is necessarily loose and elastic; and when
ever there is for any reason a disposition 10
acquit the theory of lunacy is the most con-
venient possible. In most cases of homicide
seeming 10 lack n decided malice prepcnse-
that il, in all cases coming within the def
milton of manslaughter - there Ia usually
an exhibition of sudden rage analogous to the
involuntary passion Of the lunatIc or we say
naturally, " He could not have been in his
senses when he did this thing which was both
wicked and foolish The answer to this Is
that no great crimes are committed 10y any
one in a condition Of perfect intellectual recti-
tudc. No doubt ono who III a gust of frenzy
commits murder is, pro hGc rice, crazy but
tie law holds him responsible for that neglect
t. control his passion Ill the past which has
finally made it his master. All criminal law is
based upon the right of society to require sell
discipline of its members. 1t DresuppoSes that
at some time in his life at least the wrong
doer has been moral agent, and that it is his
own fault if he has fallen INTO IN uncOnSci0n-
able condition.
The frequency of the plea of insanity III
criminal trials is one of the results of an over
broad and mischcvously loose generalization.
There is no man who may not fall into mental
error, for the strongest minded is sometimes
mistaken and even incapable of recognizing
the mistake when it is pointed out. Now, one
who is III the confirmed habit, through his own
neglect, of becoming exceeding angry, and of
assaulting the object of his anger may know
that in doing so he is doing wrong; and
vet he may not please to hold his
murderous hand and he may please
to run the risk OF the scaffod rather than be
baked of his revenge Apparently irrational,
within his own limits he reasons perfectly,
however rapidly. He weighs his own life
against the great revenge for which he has
such stomach. He makes up his mind and
he strikes. Down upon the docks two carmen
may be engaged in an alteration such as most
of our city readers have listened TO more than
once. After brisk interchange of personal
abuse one Of them leaps from his vehicle and,
with some extcmporized weapon, fractures the
skull of his antagonist. Is the murderer under
such circumstances sanei Phosophically, no
legally, yes He knows well enough that he
may be hung at the TOmbs for what he is do
ing; he has often threatened to kill, though
he should be stretched for it," but in his
ways of life he has not been in the habit of
computing consequences, or of not doing what
he wished to do for fear of penalties and
more than all, he has seen IA great many muir
derers escape. If he is angry enough, he goes
on with his murder and Is hung; II he Is not
angry enough, he commits simple assault,
and gets sixty days on the Island; but TO say
that he is not to bc hung nor imprisoned be-
cause he has an i-regulated mind, Is simply
10 repeal the whole criminal code.
Another great mistake under which Juiles
constantly decide is to take it for granted that
no insane person has any control over his own
acts; whereas the whole system OF modern
medical practice in such cases is founded upon
n view precisely opposite. There is no well
| regulated insane asylum, the inmates of which
are not supposed to bc under "A degree of moral
responsibility, and capable IN measure ot