The Caucasian. (Shreveport, La.) 1900-192?, 1907-02-05

prc>sly provided by statute that 4 pei
son is not excused from criminal t1abl
lty as IN insane person except upo
proof that 1T the time OF committing tn
alleged criminal act, he was laborlng III
der such defect Of reason Il, either n'
to know the nature and quality ot til
act he was doing, or not TO know that tn
act was wrong; and further, that
morbid propensity t" commit prombltc
lct>, existing i'll the mind of pcr,o
who is not shown to have been i'll cap
lhlc of knowing the wrongiulnes, .
such acts, forms no defense to 4 prose
cutiou therefor. n y. Penal Code 2I
3; - Cyc. 100 2l Cyc, oo4.
In the Carpcntc rCa>c, IO2 \. \. 2:5S
where the defendant had killed HI, wifi
by repeatedly Stabbing her with knife
III the presence Of number Of people
IN the open street, and in broad daylight
thc court of appeals held that the tr1a
court did notsrr IN refusing the drfend
ant 5 request to charge the Jury that /
some controlling disease was i'll trutl
the acting power within him tthC prs
Oncr) which he could rot resist. or /
ne had not sufficient use Of his reason
to control the passion which prompted
the act. he was not responsible. Chic
Justice Ruger, writing the opinion OF the
court. said that the principle of this re
IteSt Is not only implicitly condcnnc"
ny sections 2I and q of the Penal Code
ut has been held to be urtcnahc by the
xprcSS decision Of this Court. citing the
Flanagan case, > n. y. 4o5. and quot
ng the following language OF Judge IN
ions wcakehs the restraining power OF
he will and conscience. and the rule
suggested would be the cover for the
commission of crime and its Justihcatlon
ne doctrine that a criminal act may b.
excused upon the notion of an lrreslNt
lblc impulse to commit it. when the Of
fender has the ability to discover his
cgal and moral duty in respect 10 it. has
40 place in the law
This view has been adhered To i'll til,
later cases. as in People vs.. Fcrraro, loi
n. y. 365, SIT; and People vs.. Silver
nan. TSI n. y. 235. In the latter case
/ conviction Of murder Ill the first de
gree was sustained, although the eyl-
lencc showed that the defendant had
been eccentric, morose and of bad tenn
per, and had been treated in a santa
rum little more than year before the
homicide, and although some physician,
cstlhed that he WAS insane. lhc court
n an opinion by Judge Cullen, held that
whatever may be the opinions of medical
experts as to the insanity of a person
charged with crime, but one test of re
,DonSibilltv is known to the law, namely
that found i'll section 2I of the Penal
Code above quoted, which Is but stat
utory declaration of the law as 1t hac
long purevaied. and that when the evl-
dence affords no reason for doubt that
he defendant knew both the nature ant
quality of the act done by him and that
he act was wrong, he is justly held by
the jury to be responsible for his crime
whatever may have been his eccentrlcity
of conduct, or however abnormal his dis
position
The learned judge suggested that
while the defendant 5 previous malady
and inirnties Of temper were INSULT
cient to affect his legal responsibility
they might warrant mitigation Of hi
punishment and his relief from suffering
the supreme penalty Of the law.