The Washington times., 1907-12-22

the criminal court.
IT one were to attend these hearings
and see the method in operation, he
would constantly be impressed witn the
fact that both by method of procedure
and terminology employed the alleged
insane person is placed on a par with
the criminal. He is cited into court,
accused 7f insanity upon an affidavit
Of lunacy, signed by two citizens, In
which they state that
If the insane person he permitted
to remain at liberty the rights
OF persons and of property will
be jeopardized. the preservation of the
public peace imperiled. and the COM
mission Of crime rendered probable
An Unfair Classification.
Nothing appears TO indicate that the
unfortunate insane person IS committed
to the institution for his own welfare
to be treated for the disease with which
he is afflicted and, If possible. be re-
stored TO health and useful citizenship,
the implication being that he is removed
from the community because he is a
dangerous element therein.
"The question of insanity Is solely
and absolutely n medical one TO be
solved by medical men, and there is
no more sense i'm submitting such Il
question TO a jury of laymen than
there is in submitting the question
of the existence of typhoid fever.
"The committee is of the opinion
that the Iunacy legislation OF the
District requires complete revision
in such Il way that relief may be
extended TO the insane because of
their illness, rather than upon the
basis of probable criminal acts, as
under the present Law.
The law should provide that. upon
satisfactory medical evidence, the court
should be empowered TO commit directly
without public proceedings in open
court.
The safety Of all partieE concerned
can be readily taken care OF by pro-
viding, as the New York law does, for
example. that a hearing before jury
can be had upon the motion OF the
alleged insane person, or a friend or
relative on his behalf, or upon the
courts own motion. Experience shows
that only a small percentage Of the
cases that pass in review take this
method Of procedure under such law,
and then only those that are probably
harmed the least by the excitement in
cident TO a public trial
Good Time for Reform.
I'VE would call particular attention TO
the fact that the time has never been
| more propitious for the enactment OF
new lunacy leg. slaticn. Until very re-
| Gently every effort made along the
| lines above suggested has been crushed
/ By the position, largely. Of the Dis
! trict officials. who claim that any sucn
| change as suggested is unconstitutional
and cited legal decisions 10 support
their view. particularly the decision
| some years ago IN the District Court
/ Bryant C3 Mackay, 49, in which due
| process Of law was defined as meaning
trial by jury.
In a recent case. however. Justice
Barnard handed down decision under
date OF February lG, 1907, in which he
reviewed the whole situation, both as
TO the meaning Of due process Of law
and the constituuOnality Of certain
questions involved His opinion super
SeOeS eullIeig the bIA ant NrC4olOl thuQ
clarifies the entire situation.
There is now nothing TO prevent pro
ceeding along the lines Indicated. as
this decision clearly shows why due
process of law need not necessarily
mean 'tnal by jury and why a pro-
cess othe- than trial by jury may be
constitutional
Some Recommendation.
I'm closing this n port we viii briefly
sum u he recommendations that 4;
contains
- The appropriation OF 5000 to com
plate and Mt UP quarters in the old
almshouse foc the immediate care OF
the insane and those repanded toi
mentai examination.
''2 The erection of a special pavilion
for the care and treatment Of cases OF
mental disorder In connection with, and
as a part of, a general hospital
30 The utilization Of the quarters in
the almshOuse, after the erection OF
the pavilion recommended in 2, foI
, caring for inebriates, and the insane
of the jail who are under sentence OF
Indictment
- The passage Of an inebriatiOn act
-. The revision Of lunacy legislation.
nATnTOT NOT corn