Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1881-11-30

sence. not of insanity, but knowledge Of right
and wrong. Was his insanity of such q kind as
to render him irresponsible by destroying his
knowledge Of right and wrong? Nevertheless,
Juries often. and judges occasionally, out of a
natural humanity repudiate this dogma in par
ticuiar cases, and, so far from any certainty of
result having been secured by its application, it
| Is notorious that the acquittal or conviction of
prisoner, when insanity is alleged, is matter
OF chance. We're the issue to be decided by
tossing up shilling, instead of by the grave
proceudre OF trial in court, it could hardly be
more uncertain. The less insane person some
| times escapes, while the more insane person
| is sometimes hanged; one man labering
under particular form of arrangement
having an exactly similar form of derange-
| ment Is convicted at another trial No
one will be found to uphold this state of things
as satisfactory. although there is great difference
OF opinion as to the cause of the uncertainty;
the lawyers asserting that it is owing to the
| fanciful theories Of medical men who never fail
to find insanity where they earnestly look for it.
the latter protesting that it is owing to the
unjust and absurd criterion Of responsibility
which is sanctioned by the law. Meanwhile il
is plain that, under the present system, the
| judge does actually withdraw from the con-
sideration of the jury some of the essential facts.
by laying down authoritatively a rule of law
which prejuGges them; the medical men testify
| they alone have adequate opportunities of OBJ
servation; the Judge. instead of submitting these
| facts to the jury for them to come to verdict
upon. repudiates them by the authority OF So
| called rule of law, which is not rightly law but
is really false inference founded on insufficient
observation.
In America it would seem that matters have
been little better than they are in this country.
the practice of the courts, like that of the
British courts, having been diverse and
fiuctuating. In many instances juries have
been instructed. in accordance with English
legal authorities. that. if the prisoner, at the
time of committing the act, knew the nature
and quality OF it, and that in doing it he was
doing wrong, he must be held responsible. not
wlthstandng that on some subjects he may
have been insane; that, in order to exempt a
person from punishment, insanity must be SO
great in extent or degree as to DESTROY his
capacity of distinguishing between right and
wrong in regard to the particular act But in
other instances the instructions of the judges
nave been different. In the case of State '. We,
Grafton. 60, 1864. Chief Justice Bell charged the
jury thus:
-. The e.. evidence e., must satisfy the jury that
tine question eaHg at was the ssne e of and 9Sa ,5 The
# sns severity that the n is incapable
hee n that
ms own dsordered mind or as the same rule has been
b punishable By law have seisnt ne%ss 70
lar act about to be done, know and understand that
to control tie sudden impulses q his o,sa dSsor g
distingushing test Of insanity the inattg to cot1oi
the S e being the The of a
w over the conduct may be equally lost and the party
being but under the blind influence Of evil thoughts
which he can neither regulate nor control 1t
insane were spoken of Of evil spirit or
Possessed with the devil SO foreign the impulses of
of fhaS
Jones' PIP. 376. SIT.
In the case Of Stecens v. The State of Indiana.
the instruction to the jury. that. if they believed
the defendant knew the difference between right
and wrong in respect to the act in question, if
ne was conscious that such act was one
which he ought not to do. he was responsible
was held to be erroneous.
1t would appear then, that the American
courts, which, having inherited the common
law of England, at first followed dociley IN the
wake OF the English courts, are now exhibiting
disposition to emancipate themselves from
an authority which they perceive to be founded
on defective and erroneous views of insanity.
and a desire to bring the law more into accord
ance with the results of scientific observation
The decisions Of the court of New Hampshire in
Bodrd'a0n v. WoOdn,dn. State v. Jones. and
State " Pake, are especially worthy of attention
1or their searching discussion of the relations of
insanity to Jurisprudence and for the decisive
abandonment of the right-and-wrong test of re-
sponslbllity. In the case of State V. Pike Chief
Justice Perley instructed the jury that they
should return verdict of not guilty q. if the
killing was the offspring OF mental disease in
the defendant; that neither delusion nor knowl-
edge OF right or wrong. nor design or cunning
in planning and executing the killing and in
escaping or avoiding detection, nor b Iity to
recognize acquaintance, or to labor or transact
business or manage affairs, is, as matter of
law, a test of mental disease; but that all symp-
toms and all tests Of mental disease are purely
matters OF fact to be determined by the jury"
"A striking and conspicuous want of success" said
Judge d Dee in the same case has attended the efforts
Was Tor long time supposed that however
from doing it. But whether that suspicion is correct
or not is pure question Of fact: in other words,
Whether in the medical any other pro-
fess,9n or in the general notions of mankind. is ma
theory The test in all its FORMS and the
ture stages of science in the dim light earlier times
and subsequently, upon more extensive observations
medical profession. But LEGAL trbunals have Claimed
these tests as immutable PRINCIPLES Of law, and
denunciation Of medical theories unconscious that
h swn assault
purely medical and pathological their character, re-
ana the force Of judicial de aas De
h e hs old Of the
for the jury It is the business Of the court to know
whether any of them correct. The law does not
change with every advance of science; nor does it
nalntan fantastic consistency by adhering to med
lcal mistakes which science has corrected. The legal
principle, however much it may formerly have been
obscuTed by pathological darkness and combustion. is
that product of mental disease is contract
Or crime 1t is often difficult to ascertain whether
individual has mental disease and whether act
the product OF that disease but these difficulties
from the law they practical difficulties solved
DO the jury, and not legal difficulties for the court
These American decisions are certainly an adj
vance on any judgment concerning insanity
which has been given in this country; they put
in proper light the relations of medical Obser-
walton and law in questions of mental disease:
and it cannot be doubted that future progress
will be along the path which they have marked
out. The question which will probably be sub
mitted to the jury will be substantially Was the
act the offspring or product of mental disease !?
and it will be seen that to lay down any So
called test OF responsibility, founded ON sup
posed knowledge of right and wrong, is, as
Judge Ladd remarked in State Y. Jones, ian in
reference with the province of the jury, and
the enunciation of proposition which, in it's
essence, is not law and which could not in any
view safely be given to the jury as rule for
their guidence, because, for aught we can know,
it may be false in fact" Seeing, then, that. by
the unanimous testimony of medical men of all
countries who have been practically acquainted