Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1882-01-10
GUITEAU'S PLEAS.
The Prayers Onered by the Defense.

First. The legal test of Responsibilities, when
insanity is set up as a defense for alleged
crime, is not merely whether the accused
knew at the time what he was doing, and
that the sct was contrary to law, for an ire
spOnsible insane person may know those
things, but was the act done as the result
OF au insane delusiOn, or was it committed
under an influence or power which the sc-
cused could not resist by reason Of his un-
sOuUdness Of minds
Second. Although the accused may have
known what he was doing was contrary TO
the law of the land, vet II, when he per-
formed the act he really believed that he
was thereby producing public benefit, and
was actuated by an insane delusiOn that be
Wss carrying out an inspiration of Divine
origin or approval, aud would not have done
the act but for such insane delusion, then
the accused is not guilty Of the crime chsrg-
ed against him, and the jury should iud
him mot guilty by reason Of insanity"
Third. Insanity constitutes a defense II,
by reason of it, the accused, at the time Of
committing the act charged, did not know
what be was doing; or, II be did not know
that what he was doing was contrary to
law; OF, If the act would not have been done
BY him but for reason Of the insanity.
Fourth. The only evidence in the present
case tending to show an irresistible impulse
10 EUAuuAlb tIt IL AUlACAQcs VI iuAb tut dEGuStu
ac.ed under the pressure Of an insane de-
lusiOn IN doing the act, is found in the
conduct and words OF the accused ss detail
ed in evidence. The question whether the
free agency of the accused was DESTROYED by
a conviction on his part that the death OF
the President was required for the good Of
the American peop G, aud that he was
diviueiy inspired to remove him by death,
is one If fact to be determined by the jury
from all the evidence in the case, and such
evidence includes the acts as well as the
words Of the accused. But such conviction,
II It really existed, could not afford any ex-
cuse when the party knew what he was
doing, and that 1t was contrary to law,
unless It was the product of an insane de-
lusiOn and he was impelled to do the act
by such delusion. Such delusion
may exist as to a Divine requirement,
OF as to sr inspiration from God. No mere
delusion, unless IL be the product OF an un-
sound mind, nor error of judgment, nor
even the fixed belief that what is prohibited
nv the law is commanded or approved bv
Divine authority, can exempt the accused
from responsible i'Y for breaking the law. IL
a. the time he knew wba. he was doing and
that It was contrary to law, and he was not
acting under an insane delusion. To have
such effect the committing OF the act
charged must have been the result OF an
insane delusiou OF such force as to deprive
the accused OF the degree OF reason neces-
sary 10 distinguish between right and wrong
in respect Of the act, as sane people gen
orally Judge Of such conduct. The delusion
must have been such that at the time of
committing the act he either did not know
what he was doing, or, IL he did, he must
have acted under a controlling conviction
that the act was right. Although he may
have known that the act was contrary to
the law OF the land, vet II be did It uRder
the insane delusion that II was commanded
70 be done by God, such knowledge on his
part would not make him liable to punish
ment.
Fifth. Whether insanity exists or has ex-
listed at any time with the prisoner, and the
degree Of insanity, If any existed or has ex-