The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1900-07-18
w. G. T. u. DEPARTMENT.
Conducted by the ladies Of the w. e.
Il. U. Of Anderson, $. G..
Tile Criminal Responsibility Of Inebrates

Tie Criminal Responsibility Of Inebriates.
The public sentiment toward the
criminal incbriatc is that he may un
consciously, or by force Of poison, or
through diseased judgment, commit
q crime; but heretofore the sentiment
also has been that he was responsible
for being and inebriate, or for being
intoxicated, and therefore the respon-
sibility includes the criminal act.
Many countries have laws bearing
upon this subject. In the United
States the law recognizes no plea of
responsibility by reason of 'intoxica-
tion; but in actual practice there is
recognition oftentimes that chronic
incbriety is diseased condition. New
York State, some fifty years ago, class
ed confirmed drunkards, relating to
legal responsibility, among the "lu-
natics, idiots, and persons Of unsound
mind" A law similar to this exists
in Manitoba.
In Austria if drunken person com
mits crime, he may be punished for
becoming intoxicated, but not for the
crime, provided it l.; established that
he did not premcditate the crime and
become drunk in order to nerve his
courage TO the cruel deed. In Ger
many and Switzerland there are laws
recognizing differences in responsible
ity relating to culpablc or inculpable
drunkenness In Italy the law pro-
vidcs that if crimes are done during
intoxication, one-third Of the punish
ment, whether in time Of confinement
or amount of fnc, is rcmittcd.
In the sixteenth century the law Of
England provided that capital punish
ment must be executed, though the
criminal was entirely unconscious at
the time of crime, and even if it was
not premeditatcd. The lawmakers,
no doubt, took the view that if the
criminal had been sober at the time of
committing the act, instead Of drunk,
possibly the act would not have been
committed. This would appear rca-
sonablc. In the eighteenth century
Lord Mansfield went further in his in
depreciation Of and rulings under this
law, holding that drunkenness is
crime itself, and that the law could
not condonc one crime by another.
Coke ruled that the drunkard is vol
uutary mailman, and thcforc RESPONSE
BILE.
The ancicnts had law on this sub
jcct. The Roman law provided for
mitigation during intoxicatith, but
the Greek abhorrcd intemperancc, and
his law showed drunkenness no favor
in the commission of crimes. In one
of the Greek States, Mitylenc, under
the ruler Pittacus, the punishment
was doubled for crime com m.nitteu dur
ing debauch.
In modern times judges are disposed
to hold that drunkenness is no excuse
for crime, and that criminal act done
during dcbauch is as punishable as
one done by premeditstion, when the
criminal is entirely sober. An in.
stance Of this ruling occurred in a
noted case in which two friends be-
came intoxicated, and one killed the
other, imagining that his friend was
assaulting him. This case occurred
in England. The judge held that the
prisoner was guilty for the reason that
he was responsible for his drunken
condition.
1t would appear to be clear that a |
large number Of crimes are done by !
people In condition of debauch who
premeditate che crime, become drunk |
en- as preliminary to the crime, and
do the deed when under the influence
of the poison. The question would |
appear to be to settle the point Of pre-
meditation or determination or inten-
tion to commit the crime, rather than
to hold t. person guilty because he
was responsible for getting druuk.-I
Banner Of Gok3..
A Featasle Wastex1.