Butler citizen. [volume] (Butler, Pa.) 1877-1922, 1882-02-08
NO. II

or other morbid condition, and connect
ed with it as effect with cause, ant
that il was not the result of sane rea
soning which the party might be capa
bic of, Notwithstanding his limited ant
circumscribed disorder. Assuming
that that inhrmity of mind had diree
influence on crime, the difficulty wal
to fix the character of the disorder
which fixed responsibility or irrespons
ibility in law. 1t would be well to say
word to the jury as to the kind o
evidence by which courts and juries
were guided in this difficult and delicate
inquiry. That subtle essence, called
mind, defined, of course. ocular inspec
ton. 1t could only be known by its
manifestations The test was as te
whether the conduct of the man and
his thoughts and emotions conformed
with those of persons of sound mind
or whether they contrasted harshly
with it. BY that, judgment was
formed as to mans soundness of mind,
and for that reason evidence was ad.
missable to show conduct and language
that would indicate to the general mind
some marked condition of the intellect.
ual powers. Everything relating to
his mental and physical history was
therefore relevant, because any conclu.
sion on the subject must often rest on
large number of facts; and letters
spontaneously written, afforded one Of
the best indications of mental condition.
Evidence of insanity in the parents
was always pertinent, but juries were
never allowed to infer insanity in the
accused from the mere fact of its exist
ence in the ancestors. Therefore it
was that, in this case, the defense had
been allowed to introduce evidence
concerning the whole life of the accused
and reaching also his family anteced-
ents.
COULD HE TELL r :GHT FROM WRONG?
The instructions which be had al
ready given to the jury imported that
the true test of criminal responsibility
where the defense of insanity was in
terposed was, whether the accused had
sufficient use of his reason to under
stand the nature of the act with which
he was charged, and to understand
that it was wrong for him 70 commit
it. If those were the facts, he was
criminally responsible for the act,
whatever pecuharities might be shown
of him in other respects On the other
hand, if his reason were so defective,
in consequence of brain disease, that
he could not understand what he was
doing, or could not understand that
what he was doing was wrong, he
ought to be treated as an irresponsible
lunatic. AS the law assumed every
one. at the outset, to be sane and re-
sponsible, the question was, what was
there in this case to show the contrary
as to this defendant?
A jury was not warranted in in
ferring that man was insane from the
mere fact of his committing crime or
from the enormity of the crime, because
the law presumes that there is bad
motive, and that the crime is prompted
by malice if nothing else appears.
Perhaps the easiest way for the jury to
examine into the subject was, first, TO
satisfy themselves about the condition
of tue prisoners mind for a reasonable
period OF time, and then consider what
evidence exists as to different condi-
tioD Of mind at the time Of the commits
sion of the act. The jury would have
to draw its own conclusions. Was the
prisoners ordinary, permanent, chronic
condition of mind such that he was
unable to understand the nature of his
actions and to distinguish between right
and wrong in bis conduct? Was he
subject all the time to insane deluslons
which destroyed his power 80 to dis
tinguish? And did those continue
down to and embrace the act for which
he is on trial? If 80 he was simply
an irresponsible lunatic On the other
hand, had he the ordinary intelligence
of sane people, 80 that he could distin-
guish between right and wrong as to
his actions? If another person had
committed the assassination. would
the prisoner have appreciated the wick
edness of it? Would he have under
stood the character of the act and its
wrongfulness, if another person had
suggested it to him? The jury must
consider these questions in their own
mind. If the jury were satisfied that
his ordinary and chronic condition was
that of sanity-at least 30 far that he
knew the character of his own actions,
and how far they were right or wrong
and that he was not under any per-
manent insane delusion, which de-
stroyed bis power of discriminating be-
tween right and wrong. then the re-
naming inquiry was whether there
was any special insanity connected
with this crime.
WAS THERE AN INSANE DELUsIoN
1t would be seen that the reliance of
the defense was the existence of an in
sane delusion in the prisoners mind,
which 80 perverted his reason as to in
capacitate him from perceiving the diff
ference between right and wrong as to
this particular act. The Judge then
expounded at length the law regarding
insane decisions. An insane delusion,
he concluded, was the coinage of a dis
eased brain, which defies reason and
ridicule, and throws into disorder all
the springs of human action. The
question for the jury to determine was
what was the condition OF the priso-
ner's mind at the time when this pro-
iect was executed. If be was sufficient
ly sane then to be responsible, it mat
ters not what might have been his con-
dition before or after.
There was undoubtedly form of in
sane delusion, consisting of belief by
a person that he is inspired by the AL
mighty to do something-to kill an
other, for example-and the delusion
might he so strong as 10 impel him to