Butler citizen. [volume] (Butler, Pa.) 1877-1922, 1882-02-08

|
ly believed that, like st. Paul on his
way to Damascus, he had been smitten
to the earth and had seen a great light,
and bad heard voice from Heaven
warning and commanding him to do a
certain act, that would be q case of i'm
aginary inspiration amounting to an
insane delusion. The question was
whether the case of this defendant pre-
sented anything analogous to that.
Judge Cox went on to say that the
question for the jury was whether, on
the one hand, the idea of killing the
President frst presented itself to the
defendant in tue shape of a command
or inspiration of the Deity, in the man.
ner in which insane delusions of that
sort arose, or whether, on the other
hand, it was conception of his own,
and whether the thought of inspiration
was not simply speculation or theo-
retical conclusion of his own mind. If
it were the latter, it was nothing more
than Une Of the vagaries of reasoning
which he bad already characterized as
furnishing no excuse for crime He
had dwelt upon the question of insane
delusion simply because the evidence
touching the defendants power, or
want of power (from mental disease),
to distinguish between right and wrong
as to the act done by him. This was
the broad question for the jury to de-
termine, and was what was relied up
on by the defense.
MENTAL AND MORAL OBLIQUITY.
1t had been argued with fervor on
the Fart cf the defense that there were
great many things in the defendants
conduct which could not be expected of
sane man, and which were only ex-
plainable on the theory of insanity.
There were strange things in his career;
and whether they were really indica-
tions of insanity or could be accounted
for by bis ignorance of men, his exag-
gerated egotism, or by his bluntness of
moral sense, it might be difficult to de-
termlne. The only safe rule, however,
was for the jury to direct its attention
to the test of criminal responsibility,
namely Whether the prisoner possess
ed the mental capacity at the time the
act was committed to know that it was
wrong or whether he was deprived of
that capacity by mental disease.
There vas one important distinction
which the jury must not lose sight of
aud they must decide how far it was
applicable to the case That was the
between mental and moral
obliquity
In conclusion Judge Cox said: And
now gentlemen, to sum up all l have
said to you, if you find from the whole
evidence that at the time of the COM
mission of the homicide the prisoner
was laboring under such a defect of
his reason that he was incapable of un-
what he was doing, or Of
seeing that it was a wrong thing to do,
as, for example, if he were under the
insane delusion that the Almighty had
him to do the act, then he
was not in a responsible condition of
mind, but was an object of compassion
and should be now acquitted. If, on
the other hand, you find that he Yves
under no insane delusion, but had the
possession of his faculties and had pow
er to know that his act was wrong
and if, of his own free will, he deliber-
ately conceived the idea and executed
the homicide, then whether his motives
were personal vindlctivencss, political
animosity, desire to avenge supposed
political wrongs or morbid desire
for notoriety, or if you are unable to
discover any motive at all, the act is
simply murder and it is your duty to
find verdict Of guilty as indicted;
or (after suggestion from Mr.. Scoville
to that affect) if you find that the pris-
oner IS not guilty by reason of insani-
ty, it is your duty to say so. You
will now return to your room and con
slider your verdict