The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-02-02
Smell aud no-aI Responsibilities.

lent. We have been properly unwilling
TO give the intelligent and able counsel
for the defence the benefit OF reason
for representing that here was any oIi-
cry against the prisoner. But the trail
jury has found him guilty OF murder in
the first degree and it is absolutely GER
tain that he will drop through the trap {; S
a consequence OF his crime. To even adj
nit Tie Thought that beast like Smell
should not be hanged would be to concede
the impossibiliJy of protecting society
against its euemie.,.
There is something. however. very useful
to consider in the connection. The effort
OF the defence 10 prove Smell insane fail
ed. although the usual number of witness
es who had heard that his family was
largely in tire insane asylum from genera
tica 10 generation were produced; and,
although the counsel for the prisoner
argued ably in support of the contention
that an abnormal act is evidence OF alb
normal mentality, the exhibition of which
is proof positive OF the absence of normal
or sane mind and impulse. The facts that,
for ordinary purposes. the murderer had
appeared sane hsd conducted himself in
a normal manner in ris work in the Pen
sion Office. and had always seemed 10 be
a well-infnrmed mar were conclusive to
tie jury CT his sanity and responsibility.
The circumstances were damnatory. On
the evidence We mist conclude that a big
and fierce brute Of the Southern cracker
type now prominently before the public in
connection with the shooting of Governor
Goebel. of kentucky. had first outraged
and then cut the throa. of poor little slip
of girl thirteen years old. What is the
philosophy Of the right of society to pro-
tect itself against the preparation of such
crimes?
This is question which brings into the
forum of modern scientific discussion our
whole punitive system. its concepts, its
policy. and its practices. The jury in the
Smell case failed 10 excuse or palliate the
murder on account of insanity, but found
TIE prisoner guilty in view OF a basic
theory which is necessary under existing
conditions. but which is. nevertheless. I'M
scientific and opposed 10 the public good.
Under circumstances more extreme, less
intelligent jury. moved by expert testi-
mony. might have fallen into the trap of
emotional or temporary" insanity. and
acquitted the miscresnt on the ground Of
an absence of moral responsibility.
1t is the moral responsibility principle
in our punitive system to which protest
should be made now and continuously IN
iii its fallacy can be realized by the Amer
lean people and its vicious influence upon
our criminal jurisprudence remedied. Ar
guing from the foundation of that system.
we nln.ishl offences against property and
the person as it might be conceived that
the Deity would punish the commission of
moral wrongs committed By His creatures.
In fact. the whole punitive system which
has come down TO us through the later Ro-
man. and the canon law. and the ideas Of
which have become encysted in our Eng
lish and American laws and practice, is
one which assumes the right to consider
misdemeanor and crime from the point of
view Of moral dereliction. unquestionably,
the basis of this theory is to be found in
the direct divine agency and yicegerency
of Popes and Emperors. and their power
thus derived 10 Judge Of the motives.
hence the moral responsibility OF men as
to their conduct.
So. through the medieval ard later cen
turies. civilized society. through its spirit
ual and temporal authorities. has gone on
assuming The power of God Almighty, by
delegation TO judge Of mems motives and
to create delegated divine vengeance upon
them for infractions of the moral law. \
slight deviation from she line Of moral re-
sponslbility. il proven. has been generally
sufficient 90 save them from its terrors. AS
an extreme Illustration. some years ago a
wretch in Alabama. being tired OF his mis-
trcss, murdered her in cold blood while
she was begging for mercy. The murder
er's father being prominent clergyman
of the locality. the jury found that it was
impossible for a youth brought up under
such auspices to commit such a crime,
EXCEPT under condition Of insanity. and
he was condemned 10 the State insane asy-
lum for an indefinite term. Within six
month"; from his conviction he succeeded
in securing his release from confinement
as cured"
The point OF our argument is this: In
the light Of modern and scientific lnowl
edge II is the shcerest nonsense 10 assume
thaS any man, be he Pope. Emperor, hyp-
notist. or Christian Scientist has either
the authority or the ability TO judge Of the
motives of men. We have no more right
TO formulate a dogmatic decision as TO
the moral tuIpitude OF John Wilkes Booth
in demonstrating President Lincoln. or of
Guiteau in removing President Garfield,
or of Tsylor' banditti in shooting Gov
ernor Goebel than we have in lixipg the
moral responsibility OF the snake that
stings us or % the mad dog that bites u.s. |
II is the fact and not The motive that
gives society the right TO take action. and
we shall get nearer the ruth ana nearer
the scientific foundation of ADJUST criminal
when We abandon the archaic I
and indefensEbie idea of divine commits 4
sion empowering us TO punish moral wrong. 4
and establish our right to meet and sup
press offenders against the rights of prop |
erty or the person. upon the plane of (
that sacred primal right OF society. as
well as of The indiyidual-the right Of self |
iefenee.
Thus, under this conception q The So
cial right OF protection, ;he question would
not arise as to The mental condition of
man, inherently dangerous TO society,
when he happened to commit burglary,
IN outrage. or !. murder. IL would be only