The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1906-07-26
WHEN HE'S CRAZY
Board of Control Fixes the In
sane Rules.
Only Those With Mental Dis
orders Admitted.
LIABILITY FOR CRIME.
Line Drawn by the Courts Fix
ing Responsibility.
When Person Understands Ma
ture of His Acts
LIABILITY FOR CRIME

obliged in by the newspapers through
out the country. editorially and other
wise. and the papers of Kansas are do
ing their share of it, over what consti-
tutes criminal responsibility, when
person charged with a grave crime sets
up a plea of insanity. This discussion
has been instigated by the murder of
Stanford White by Harry K Thaw
and the squabbles which have been in
duiged in between Thaw and his var
ious attorneys as to whether or not his
defense should be that Of insanity in
some of its phases, more particularly
emotional insanity
In this discussion, especially in some
of the Kansas papers, some rather
unique ideas have been advanced as to
the criminal responsibility of the weak
minded, and it is therefore exceedingly
interesting to know just what the law
is in cases of this sort as laid down by
the supreme court of this state.
A compilation of the various decisions
of the court of last resort of the state
has been made by the state board Of
control and makes up a chapter Of their
annual report which has not been pub
lished as yet This chapter is headed
criminal Responsibility, and among
other things it says:
In considering the legal phases of in
sanity in Kansas four distinctions
should be kept in mind:
First-The rules for the construction
of statutes, section 7342, G. S. 1901 sub
division sixth, 1.-The words insane per
sons include idiots, lunatics and dis
tracted persons"
Second-The first class of insane per-
sons, the ones eligible for admission to
state hospitals. Section $3.50, G. 5. 1901,
defines the meaning of the word IN
sane" as used in that act, the purpose
being to limit the admission OF persons
to the hospitals to persons whose minds,
by reason of brain sickness, have be-
come unsound, as distinguished from
idiots, imbeciles, persons of unsound
mind, and habitual drunkards who are
not fit subjects for treatment in hos
pital for brain disease or insanity, and
to classify and treat such persons as
sick persons
Third-The second class of what is
generally referred to as insane persons.
Idiots, inbeciles, persons Of unsound
mind. and habitua1 drunkardSs ana Tor
either of these reasons incapable Of
managing their affairs. who have
estates and for whom guardians should
be appointed. Chapter 29S, laws 1905
Fourth-Crfninal responsibility-
the right and wrong test. The rule of
criminal responsibility as laid down and
b cid by our supreme court is as fol-
lows:
where a person at the time of the
commission of an alleged crime has
sufficient mental capacity to under
stand the nature and quality of the
particular act or acts constituting the
crime. and the mental capacity to
know whether they are right or wrong,
he is responsible if he commits such
act or acts, whatever may be his ca
pacity in other particulars; but if he
does not possess this degree of ca
pacity, then he is not SO responsible
In other words, il he has mental ca
pacity sufficient to distinguish between
right and wrong with respect to the
particular act or acts constituting the
alleged crime. he should be held re-
sponsible for the commission of such
act or acts. although he might be in
sane or inbecile with respect to other
matters; but if he does not possess
such capacity, then. of course, he
should be held to be Irresponsible
On the question of uncomfortable
impulse emotional insanity, the laws
and decisions OF the courts OF Kansas
do not recognize uncomfortable i'm
pulse independent of the right and
wrong test
other decisions of the state courts
are that the law presumes every man
to be sane and that he is responsible
for what he does; where habitual IN
soundness of mind is once shown to
exist 1t is presumed to continue until
the contrary is shown; sanity, If at
tackled by testimony, is to be proven
by the state. as any other fact, to the
satisfaction of the jury. and each and
every fact must be proved beyond q
reasonable doubt.
The state courts have also held that
nonprofessional witnesses may give
his opinion as to sanity, as the result
of his personal Observable of the per-
son whose mental condition is IN ques-
ton, after first stating the facts which
he observed. No general rule can be
laid down as to what shall be suf-
ficient opportunity of observation in
the witness.
As to where and how criminal re-
sponsibility shall be tried the supreme
court holds that ~the practice has been
we'll established in this state that the
question Of sanity or insanity in a Grim
inaI case. where it is claimed that the
defendant was insane at the time of the
commission of the alleged offense. may
be tried along with all other questions
in the case"
The. decisions of supreme court have
not finally settled the question as to
how criminal responsibility shall be
tried when the plea is made that the
defendant became insane after the COM
mission of the crime and should not be
tried for it but his sanity inquired into
and II insane he should be sent to an
asylum. In some cases t ehsunreme
court has decided that judges did not
err in having this question decided at
the same time as the other questions
asylum. In some cases the supreme
court has held that this question Of
subsequent insanity has been properly
eliminated from the trial for the crime
and taken before a probate Judge and
sDecial Jury. But the court holds that
where this subsequent insanity is prov
ed and the person sent to an asylum
the crime he was charged with still
stands against him and If he RECEIVERS
his reason he can be tried for the crime