Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1882-04-13

DuL GneTe Is really HO STouuu IUI the pro-
ceedings which Mrs. Scoville has under
taken, and no processb by which the prisoner
can be taken from the hands of the Gov
eminent. Ii, however. the doctrine of our
Courts had not been vitiated by false views
upon the relations between crime and in
sanity, it is clear that such movement
could not have created any apprehen-
sion in the public mind. For, putting aside
for the sake of argument all question of
the practicability of Mrs. Scoville's pro-
ceedings, it is apparent that no decision
as to Guiteau's sanity would affect his
status if once it was recognized that proof
of insanity did not free criminals from full
legal responsibility. There has in fact
never been more mischievous doctrine
admitted to the Courts than that which
has obtained in this country of late years
in this connection. The most experienced
and ablest alienists have long since been
convinced that insane criminals are per-
fectly capable of self-restraint, and that in
nine cases out of ten they are fully aware
of the consequences of their acts, and con-
scious of the fact that they are doing
wrong when they commit crime.
There is therefore no basis for the theory
that proof of insanity involves immunity
from punishment, nor is there any real hui
ulanity in the doctrine. Of course it rests
almost wholly on the belief that insanity
deprives the patient of volition, and sub
jects him to morbid influences over which
he has no control. But experience proves
that though this idea is constantly availed
of to shield murderers, it is not acted upon
by society. Take the case of DR.. LamsOn
as an illustration. Desperate efforts are
now being made to show that he has been
insane for years. Yet the people who now
declare their belief in his madness never
thought of restraining him, or of question
ing his responsibility, until he had COM
mitted murder. Evidently they did not
believe that an insane man was unfit to be
trusted, even with heavy responsibilities.
For during part of the period referred to
DR., Lamson was in charge of hospital full
of sick and wounded men, and lunatic in
such position, with a homicidal tendency,
might have killed half his patients.
But the same people who admit that they
were not afraid to intrust the lives of q
large number of helpless men to one whom
they regarded as insane, now come forward
and argue that he ought to be held ire
sponsible because he has murdered his
brother-in.law
Such are the Inconsistencies and anomalies
which this irrational aid unscientific theory
forces upon those who hold it. From their
personal experience they know that men
may be more or less insane and yet be so
completely responsible as to be trusted
with heavy charges. But when it becomes
necessary to shield murderer the doctrine
of utter responsibility is urged in the
most reckless way. The Guiteau case
afforded good opportunity for overthrow
ing the fallacy which has done so much to
hinder justice, but unfortunately the prose.
cution committed the mistake of admitting
that proof of insanity would entitle the
prisoner to an acquittal on the capital
charge, and so they made the whole case
turn upon that question. We have long
been convinced of Guiteau's insanity but
we hold that there are thousands of
criminals equally mad, for whom the regu-
lar penalties of the law are the best possible
treatment. 1t is impossible, in fact, for
the law to attempt to draw nice distinc-
tions between criminals who are sane and
those who are not. All that it should be
necessary to prove is that the defendant is
capable of distinguishing right from wrong,
and that he knows the consequences of his
acts. These points settled in the affirm
alton, the law should take its course, and
all such murderers should be cured of
their madness by the gallows.
1t is in order to point out that if Guiteau
had been treated as he should have been,
since his sentence, Mrs. Scoville never
could have made the pretense she has.
She bases her application on the fact that
be is making money and spending it Law
ishly. But murderer under sentence of
death ought not to be permitted to sell his
portraits and autographs, and hold daily
receptions, and amuse himself by spend
ing the money 50 obtained. Itreally seems
as if it were impossible to secure observ-
ance of the commonest decencies at any
stage Of this Guiteau case. The conduct
of the authorities in allowing him the lib
erty he now enjoys is only less scandalous
than the conduct of the Judge who pre-
sided at his trial. There is no excuse or
palliation for it whatever. The wretch
ought to have been confined strictly from
the moment he received the death
sentence. He should have been cut
off from all intercourse with the world
from that instant. He should have
been made to feel that he was regarded as
a righteously condemned assassin. No in
diligence or privilege should have been
granted him. Special care should have
been taken to guard against the fostering
of that disgusting prurient curiosity which
always leads fools of both sexes to haunt
the cells of great criminals. Instead of
this he has been encouraged to insult the
sentiment of the country to the last, and a
fresh scandal is now added to that OF his
trial and imprisonment in an attempt to
obtain control of the funds which he has
secured by distributing licensees of his
detestable self among the morbid minded
and shameless idiots who can alone be
induced to seek such relics Of the obscene
creature. Nor do we feel at all certain
that even this viii be the last of the long
list OF national disgraces furnished by the
Guiteau crime.
tbs LAW may BE RELIED UPON.