The Emporia weekly news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1881-1889, 1884-01-31
TIE PLEA on TgsAYTyy


New York Tribune: The difficulty of |
securing satisfactory verdicts In capital
cases where the plea OF insanity has been
raised Is 30 great that It seems accessory
TO have recourse to some change in the
practice. Under the existing rules of
evidence ia most states medical testi-
mony Is placed at disadvantage. Usu-
ally the medical expert has To depend
altogether upon two sources Of inEorma-
ton, namely, a personal examination Of
the defendant and such q Hypothetical
presentation Of the case as the counsel
may construct Formerly theexpert was
allowed 10 avail himself Of the whole OF
the evidence presented, and that gave
him q much better foundation for judg-
ment. FOT In order TO form a correct
opinion upon an alleged case of insani-
tY 1t Is necessary not only to possess
knowledge Of the present condition Of
the subject, but the facts concern
ing beth the entire past life and
the ancestry of the person should be be
fore the expert The practice of putting
hypothetical CAGES to medical witnesses
Is by no means q good one, moreover
The counse! on either side have special
theories to maintain. and they naturally
endeavor SO to frame their hypothesis
that the answers TO their questions will
make for their theory. And since it Is
not difficult for a shrewd lawyer in
framing hypothetical case to.distort or
conceal the actual facts, 1t has some
times happened that experts have been
thus led TO make apparently contradic-
tory statements, to the confusion of the
jury and the discredit Of medical testi-
mony. Indeed, it may be said that so
long as counsel are allo wed virtually TO
control the tendencies IL not the sub.
stance of expert testimony in such cases
it will be impossible for the courts to
derive from science the full advantage
of her researches in alienism.
No doubt the conclusions of alienist:
are not always concordant, and this fact
has done much to bring their evidence
into disrepnte. In the present state OF
psychological knowledge, however, it is
useless to look for complete harmony
though we think 1t may be said that all
experts are agreed on the physical char.
acter of insanity, and that agreement Of
itself constitutes very important gain
The most rational method of determining
pleas of insanity would be by empanel
ling jury of experts to pass UPON the
medical question. No ordinary jury
can be competent TO resolve such mat
ter with the necessary intelligence, anC
experience proves this cOnclusively. A
jury OF experts would not be confused
and embarrassed by the mixture of SEMI
mental and pathological consideration
which prove such stumbling blocks t.
the common jury. They would have Il
pass upon matters entirely within the re
gion of their professional knowledge
and 1t may be presumed that their yer
dict would at least be defensible upoI
rational grounds. II, however, thu
method is unattainable, the medical wit
ness should not be so hedged in by re
straints and exclusions as they are a
present. The existing position realll
suggests the idea that it was devise
with the express object of depriYinl
expert testimony Of value and authority
in the interest of the happy go-lucky
hit-or-miss system which has done S,
much to render murder an uupunishGbl
CRIME in many of the states.