St. Landry democrat., 1885-07-18
WHO is REsPoNsIBLE7

Feats of Daring Species of Insanity-Ne"
cessity of the Education of Public Senti-
ment.
The attempt of a foolish fellow
named Odlum to surpass the feats of
Sam Patch by jumping from the Brook
Ign Bridge had fatal result. There
have been demands that the men who
aided and abetted him in his dangerous
feat should be punished, but it is diff
cult to see what can be done to them or
what ofiense they have committed. The
only section of the Penal Code that
could by any ingenuity be stretched to
cover their act is section IT'S, which is:
"a person who Willfully, in any man
ner, advises, encourages, abets or as
sists another person in taking the lat
ter's life is guilty of manslaughter in
the first degree" But in preceding
section suicide is defined as 'sthe inten-
tional taking of ones own life. " 1t
would be impossible to prove to any
Jury that Odlum intended to take his
own life; on the contrary, he expected
to perform the feat with safety. If he
was not guilty of suicide, under the le-
gal definition, his friends can not be
punished as abettors of suicide.
There is, in fact, no provision of law
to the effect that men shall not be fools,
and throw away their lives in the vain
attempt to accomplish some great feat.
Perhaps there ought to be some such
law, but the difficulty of enforcing one
is apparent Every man who jumps on
or off a moving car, who rides a frac-
tious horse, who performs athletic
feats demanding skill and courage,
may be said to risk his life, and oc-
casionally fatal accident occurs. Men
take these risks daily, and entirely to
prohibit them by law is an impossible
thing. 1t is very difficult to draw the
line and say where there should b. pub
lie interference. In athletic exhibitions
the line has been drawn at the trapeze,
and performers have been required to
protect themselves in part from ac-
cident by the use of nettings. Leaping
into the water from moderate height
is not dangerous thing, and for one
who is practiced leaper great heights
are not very dangerous. At what pre-
else number of feet should the line be
drawnp
1t must be apparent to any one who
thoughtfuIly considers the question from
all points of view that more can be done
to discourage such feats by public senti-
ment than by statute; in fact, that
statutes would be Intellectual unless
there is change in public sentiment.
So long as the morbid desire of so many
people to see great feats performed ex-
lists there will be men whose love of no
toriety will impel them to risk their
lives in doing all sorts of foolish things.
To be the hero of the hour, the subject
of talk everywhere for a day or two, is
enough to impel many men and women
to crime; and the same inducement will
lead many more to risk their lives in
acts of foolhardy daring. It will be
wonder if the sensation made by Od1um
does not stimulate some other foolish
person to make a similar attempt.
The responsibility for this kind of in
sanity-for it is little else-rests upon
those who applaud successful feats of
daring. and by so applauding encour-
age their performance. The education
of public sentiment is the thing upon
which chief reliance must be had for the
prevention of foolhardiness, not legal
enactment-M r Examiner.