The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-08-04
INSANE CRIMINALS.

An dpie dTIlCIe appears III q recent issue
of the New York Medical Reuiew which
gives new phase to the subject of insane
criminals. 1t is entitled "Shall Insane
Criminals Be Imprisoned or Put to Death? ?"
and was written by DR.. ]. 3. Ransom,
physician to the Clinton IN. W prison.
After discussing the ignoble attitude in
which the medical profession is placed by
the present absurd contradictions in ex-
pert testimony growing out of the prac-
tice of permitting both the prosecution
and defense to call expert witnesses, the
author lays down his two salient PROPOSE
lions.
The first concerns the legal definition of
responsibility. 1.-The courts, says the au-
thor, "have repeatedly held that the ques-
ton to decide as touching a mans mental
RESPONSE bility under the law is his ability
to distinguish between right and wrong
That is, to be able to understand his moral
and legal responsibility. While this ap-
plies to certain forms of insanity, it is not
all that is necessary in the way of a test,
nor does it cover the whole ground"
The author then proceeds to show that
a man may be insane and yet have COM
plete understanding and appreciation of
the consequences of his act. For that
matter there may be an appreciation of
the responsibilities and consequences so
acute as to serve in themselves as a mo-
tive for the commission of the act. That
aside, we have yet to consider the ques-
ton of ability to control an impulse, and
therein, according to this able authority,
lies the true test of abihty. Let it
be argued that an uncomfortable impulse
exercised with a full appreciation of conse-
qences may be dangerous standard for
Judging accountability, and the author
proceeds to show that numerous physical
indications afford an intelligent ground
for determining the presence or absence of
uncomfortable impulses.
He takes the two famous cases of Prem
dergast, the inspired" murderer of Mayor
Harrison of Chicago, and Lizzie Halliday,
the triple murderess of Sullivan County,
n. Y. Prendergast was executed because
it was iudicially decided, according to
established methods, that he appreciated
the consequences of his act and was, there
fore, accountable. A similar conclusion
was reached in the case of Lizzie Halliday,
but the Governor of Now York, having
doubts that the conclusion was accurate,
ordered special scientific investigation of
her case, with the result that her life was
spared. In both these cases, as in that of
Guiteau, the court yielded to a popular
clamor against the "insanlty dodge and a
demand for retributive blood. Yet DR..
Ransom shows not only from Prender-
CASTS history but from a study of his
brain and the bones and CONFORMATION of
his skull that, although he fully realized
the consequences of his act, he could not
resist the impulse to commit it.
The second main proposition is that the
execution of such an insane criminal can
not be justified on the ground that it will
deter similar "cranks" from the commits
sion of similar deeds. On the contrary,
an execution serves only to inffame the
of other cranks, suggest acts
of which they may not have thought and
surround the scaffold with the halo of
martyrdom. Even where it does not do
this it fails to deprive the irresponsible in
sane criminal of love of life, desire to
extend his operations and the cunning to
assume some form of insanity of which he
is wholly innocent. This probably was
the case of Lizzie Halliday. Though her
history and skull showed that she was
irresponsible, she yet desired to escape
death, and to that end assumed form of
mania incompatible with her physical in
dications. 1t was the scientific, not the
superficial analysis, that saved her life.
The subject is large and interesting. and