Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-10-29

has been that proof of insanity involved
removal of accountability, and this has
naturally become the popular view also.
1t is to be regretted that there is no con-
currence of opinion among alienists. Some
of them, and notably Maudsley, hold that
insanity involves responsibility. Others,
with Hammond, agree that man may be
insane, and yet be accountable. And it
appears to us that the greater weight of
argument is with this theory. For # proof
of insanity involves responsibility, crimi-
nal jurisprudence is plunged into a hopeless
fog, seeing that the indicia of insanity are
often of the most vague and doubtful char
acter. But the true test of the accounta-
bility of the insane criminal seems to be the
existence in him OF consciousness that he
could have controlled himself There are
cases no doubt, as in epilepsy, where crimes
are committed in absolute unconscious
ness. In large proportion of cases, how
ever, the perpetrator knows what he is
doing knows that it is wrong and yields
to the morbid influence almost precisely
as sane people yield to strong temptations
to do things which they know to be wrong.
In such cases it is, we submit, altogether
unreasonable to pretend that accountability
has ceased. In certain case in France a
young man walked into room and shot
his stepmother dead. Afterwards he de-
clared that if any one had spoken to him
when he entered the room he should have
RETAINED from committing the murder.
Some little time before Oxford, the man
who shot at Queen Victoria, committed
that crime, he had been arrested for prac.
ticing cruelty upon chicken. He was
dismissed with reprimand on that occa.
sion, but when he was in the insane asylum
after shooting at the Queen he once recog
nized among the visitors the magistrate
who had discharged him, and he said to
him, "If you had punished me when
twas brought before you, l should moi
"have been here now" Thus these
madmen distinctly recognized the posi-
billty of deterrent influences.
Take the case of Guiteau. 1t might be
conceded that he was insane, but it would
by no means follow that he ought not tc
be punished. His is precisely one of the
cases in which accountability is proved
beyond question. He wasiperfectly well
aware that he was doing wrong in shooting
the President. He even feared the penalty
of that crime. To say that such a man is
irresponsible is to confound all criminal
administration, and virtually to do away
with responsibility for murder altogether
And the theory of DR.. Maudsley, namely
that all insane criminals should simply be
sent to the asylum, breaks down under the
test of practice, for DR.. Hammond has dis.
covered sixty-eight cases in England alone,
where criminal lunatics had been sent tc
asylums, had been subsequently discharged
as cured, and after all committed fresh
homicides. This shows that the asylum
theory fails to protect the public. 1t also
fails to exert any deterrent influence upon
insane minds. Experience shows that the
hanging of insane murderers has marked
salutary influence upon homicidally in.
clined lunatics generally. But it is equally
certain that the escape of Guiteau on the
plea of insanity would serve to encourage
similar assassinations. The insane every.
where would at once realize the advantage
of their responsibility, and would proceed
to indulge their morbid impulses unre.
STRANGELY.
1t is time that so important question
as this was settled definitely, however.
The legal view of insanity is incompati.
BILE with the protection of society, and it is
altogether behind the science of the age.
Punishabiity should be defined. The
demonstration of insanity in criminal
should be held to involve nothing as to
his responsibility. When the criminal is
shown to have known what he was doing,
and to have fully appreciated the conse,
quences, he should be held accountable,
and punished accordingly. We are con.
WINGED that the hanging of murderers has
distinct tendency TO prevent murder, and
this without regard to the sanity of the
homicidally disposed. It ought to be
more clearly explained to juries in murder
cases that the instances are very rare in
which the insane are incapable of self.
control. The actual truth is that in most
cases what tempts them to crime is the
knowledge that it is crime. They do not
have morbid impulses to do benevolent
deeds, but only to perpetrate atrocities,
and it is the element of evil that attracts
them. They could almost always restrain
themselves, but they yield because it graft.
fies them to do so. They are, therefore,
not irresponsible, and they ought to be
punished with as little hesitation as if they
were sane. In fact homicidal maniac
might be killed quite as justifably as a
mad dog is killed, and therefore it is treat
ing him with sufficient leniency to accord
him trial.
COMMUNITY ILLUSIONS.
1t is philosophic truth that most men