New-York tribune., 1881-11-20
INSANITY.

INSANITY.
The trial of Guiteau, disgusting specta Gle dSit
is, may nevertheless prove of great public ser
vice. There can hardly be a doubt that 1t will
cause great enlightenment of public opinion
in regard to insanity. Perhaps it may lead to
general revision of the laws bearing upon in
sanity as a defence in criminal cases.
Daily habits make people very loose III their
notions about mental disorder The aEounding
charity which thinketh no evil prompts men
often to infer that person who has done
any particularly outrageous or absurd thing
must be crazy" II is not ilattering to human
self-esteem to believe that the bascst deeds are
often done by men possessed OF ordinary human
reason. "Sudden mental alteration is COM
monty given by friends as an excuse, when
man commits suicide, or kills a wife, or child,
or friend. Insanity caused by drink" Is an
otner delicate periphrass by which social GUS
tom blinds the mind to the guilt of those who
get drunk and break the laws If man
CANDLES or speculates until he has robbed so
ciety, and then rushes to death to escape JUS
tce, society tearfully explains that business
misfortunes must have upset his reason" Thus
it comes to pass that in loose popular speech,
there are recognized great many kinds and
grades of mental weakness and disorder which
| are loosely or charitably accepted as affecting
personal responsibility for acts committed, and
| few persons stop to draw the distinction
| between any of these and the insanity which
| the law contemplates.
| The law itself, too, is greatly at fault. The
precise kind or grade of insanity which shall
relieve a man from legal responsibility for his
acts is not defined in statutes with sufficient
precision. True, there are many decisions of
courts which help to make the distinction clear
to the minds of lawyers. But jurics are not com
posed of lawyers. They are composed of per-
sons who share all the vague and loose notions
which find expression in popular speech. And
the law, as to criminal cases, practically leaves
it in the power of juries to decide whether a
man is so far sane that he ought to be pun
ished Indeed, the law, as frequently admnis-
tered, does much worse. 1t enables a man to
escape punishment, no matter what infamous
crime he may have committed, so long as one
juryman ont Of twelve has reasonable
doubt as to the sanity of the accused. Bear
ing in mind the extraordinary and growing
loOseness of popular impressions regarding in
sanity, we cannot wonder that the administra-
ton of criminal law has become disgrace to
| the country.
| The Guiteau trial will in any case do much to
educate public opinion. Probably there is not
| a sensible mau in the country who does not be-
| lieve that Guiteau ought to be hanged. People
! instinctively feel that the law ought TO protect
| society against such a creature as this, If
| against anybody, and that his mental de-
| fOrmity, by whatever name the law may de-
| scribe it, is at any rate not such that il should
| free him from responsibility for his acts For
| it is obvious that he knew what he was doing,
and that he planned and executed the deed on
purpose to bring about a political change of
which an insane person could have had no com
prehension. 1t happens that the popular in
| stnct in this instance, accOrds with the law as
| expounded by the courts Thus it has been de-
cided in this State, in cases cited in Brightley's
| Digest, pp SSS and $50:
When the prisoner at the time Of committing the Of
fence ia in such state of mind as 10 know that the act
| is unlawful and morally wrong, he is responsible
The law does recognize form of insanity in which
the capacity OF distinguishing right from exists
without the power Of choosing between them.
That species OF phrenzy which is induced by violent
passion unless settled down into state OF total de-
rsngement will not excuse the commission Of crime.
To acqut the ground of insanity 1t is not enough
that there be doubt the prisoners sanity his in
sanity must be siIrmatively established
To establish the defence OF insanity. it must be shown
that the prisoner at the time OF committing the crime
far deprived of as TO destroy the conscious
Of the distinction between right and wrongin refer
ence TO the act charged.
These citations, however, only serve to prove
that the law itself needs frequent and careful
Interpretation as to this matter, and ought to be
so changed that it shall be more clearly under
stood by the people. The trial nov in progress
may lead to some change of the statutes, and
that change should be such as to make it much
less easy for all sorts of criminals to escape on
the pretence that, at the moment Of commit
ting crime they were insane. In any event. the