The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-06-04
RESPONSIBILITY FOR CRIME.

The New York Court of Appeals has de-
cared that the responsibility for murder
has been established when the prisoner has
1.-The knowledge between right and wrong
and the knowledge of the quality of the act
which he has committed" This seems a
sensible opinion. but a medical expert in
New York city has read a paper on the
subject in which he declares that the legal
test Of criminal responsibility is not scien-
tific- He declares that there are criminals
almost without number that have Just as
keen perception between right and wrong
as the most expert casuist. The difficulty
with them is. says this expert. that they
lack power to choose the right and to
eschew the wrong Such unfortunates. as
he would call them are lacking In the right
feelings which flood the consciousness of
the upright man and deter him when he con-
templates the commission of a crime. The
scientific writer boldly denies the whole
some and probably correct theory that
every criminal is capable of being an honest
man. The criminal commits crime because
wrong feelings dominate him. Evidently
seeing that under this theory every person
who commits crime would escape if it were
recognized in criminal practice, he stops
short to declare that every man committing
a crime is irresponsible. He is irresponsi-
bic only when. in consequence of some
congenital defect in his nervous system or
in consequence of some disease of his nerv-
Gus system he cannot act upon his knowl-
edge between right and wrong
Who are to determine whether or not
such defect or disease exists In a criminal?
The writer, DR.. Mcdonald, answers the
question by saying that the criminal expert
alone can determine whether a person ac-
cused of crime is thus irresponsible. Seeing
that if there were limit to the applica-
ton of his theory. the trial of all persons
accused of crime must be preceded by
examination by criminal experts, the writ
er says: IF every form and stage of
mental disease were invariably attended by
loss of the knowledge of right and wrong
we could readily recognize this as a
symptom which furnished presumptive
evidence of insanity, and need not object to
this test, because it would. however un-
scientific. the ends of justice; but
d
come under the jurisdiction of the courts
belong to types IN which this is the case
The dangerous insane do not a rule.
belong to this type. The real questions of
fact to be decided in the case of criminal
pleading insanity are two: First, did the
defendant, at the time of the alleged crime.
nationally appreciate its nature. and. if 50.
ha he TO CHI ha-
tween right and wrong? Second, if he has
lest the power of choosing. with reference
to this particular act, was the loss due TO
disease or to the heat of passion or some
other self-induced state?"
Scientifically there is probably basis for
these theories of responsibility for an act
which the person committing knows to be
wrong. but to set them up as the rule of
procedure in criminal trials would multiply
criminals of all grades and deprive society
of much of the protection which the laws
now afford. When the murderer. the in
cendiary or the burglar can plead that he
cannot resist the impulse or temptation to
commit the crime which he has committed,
and he can escape if a criminal expert. upon
examination, believes that he has discov-
cred that he was born without power to
resist impulse or has lost the power by
disease, the chief deterrent to the commits
sion of crime will be removed. The GRIM
inal expert unless he is much wiser than
he appears to be in cases where he
is called, is a much more uncertain guam
tity than even is the jury which the legal
expert can move TO tears by his bathos.
The decision of the New York Court of
Appeals is much safer for society, and So
ciety should really be regarded as having
some right to protection even if the pro-
cedure is urscientific.
A BACCALAUREATE ADDRESS.