The Cincinnati daily star. [volume] ([Cincinnati, Ohio]) 1875-1880, 1879-05-17

Jne dCJ VI hllllub was d Nfolaeioh Vi the
law, he was impelled thereto by the direct
command of God as test of his faith
and says that as he lay for two hours on
the sofa by the side of his dead child,
after he had struck the mortal blow, he
suffered the most intense agony of mind
Then, he said, God comforted him; and
he has felt no sorrow since. He confesses
his disappointment that the child was not
raised from the dead on the third day
but attributes the failure to some other
of Gods purposes as yet unknown to
him.
Of course the circumstances of this
case must largely involve the question
of mental arrangement as robbing the
act of its character as a crime. But il
presents a popularity of arrangement
seldom found in the annals of criminal
jurisprudence. Delusion of mind is often
presented as defense against conviction
for crime. But this case carries the point
beyond all ordinary instances of insanity
alleged as defense against accusation oi
crime; and involves the question whether
belief in supernatural revelation of re
ligious doctrine is delusion or not. A
delusion of the external sense leading tc
acts of themselves criminal, is quite 8
different thing from delusion as to mat
ters of religious belief, which are pre-
sumcd to be founded on the reasoning Of
the mind itself And granting that the
reasoning may be erroneous and the be
lief consequently false, can such fallacy
constitute a delusion that should excuse
from crimes?
Murder is the malicious killing of s
human being. But Freeman's act wa'
without malice toward his child, of whom
he was fond. Manslaughter is the un
lawful killing of another without malice
Freeman's act could not be murder, bu
would be manslaughter, assuming tina
he was person of sound memory ant
discretion. Then comes the serious ques
tion whether his mental delusion as tt
matters of religious belief was such al
unsettling of his ordinary discretion a
to absolve him from the crime Of man
slaughter? Could he, under the exercise
of that discretion as to religious belief
become so deluded as not to know thu
criminal nature of his act in deliberately
killing his child? He admits that he die
know that he was committing an act il
violation of the criminal law; but claims
that he did it for pious purpose, and il
full faith that his slaughtered chile
would be raised from the dead.
1t must be confessed that mental de
lusion of such a character would be al
exceedingly dangerous one to be admit
ted as defense to homicide. If availa
Bile as such, it would excuse the Grim
inal because of his religion; and an ex
cess of piety would absolve from murder
1t would be better for such dcluded re
ligionists to test their extraordinary faitt
by removing some particular mountain
before trying it upon an innocent life
because, if they succeeded in removing
the mountain they could move it bacl
again; but the life taken could not be re
stored.
Undoubtedly there have been many
cases of religious insanity. But this
would be different from the case of mar
voluntarily reasoning himself into de-
luded belief, and then making that de-
lusion the excuse for crime. 1t has been
well held that, if man is laboring un
der confirmed insanity, he is not ac
countable; and the cause that produced
the madness is immaterial, unless it be
brought upon himself by his own wrong
Immediately antecedent to the act com
mitted under its influence.
The exposition of the law as bearing
upon this peculiar case will be watched
with interest both by the profession anc
the public. If Freeman be adjudged a,
insane, then all the Second Adventist.
must be equally so, as entertaining the
same delusion and concurring in the
Righteousness of his murderous act. Ir
that event, Massachusetts, would have
need to enlarge her lunatic asylums ir
order to protect herself from another
slaughter of the innocents."