Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1921-06-17
WHO Is INSANE?

Question for Which Satisfactory An
swer is Difficult.
Thirty years ago a clever author
wrote a book. in which he tried to
show that the geniuses: of the world
had all been insane. Today there
are doctors who are going further, and
are propounding the startling theory
that few, if any, people are entirely
sane! Mental specialists are also fall
ing foul Of the legal test as to what
constitutes insanity as regards the
1esponsibility of each of US for any
breach of the law we may commit.
The law holds that, in order To en-
title a person charged with a crime
to be acquitted en- the ground OF IN
sanity. it is not enough to show that
he was suffering from mental; insta-
bility or mental disease; or in other
words, was insane, at the time he COM
mitted the act; but that the defence
must 60 further and satisfy the jury
that the mind Of the. accused was 50
diseased that he did not know "hat
he was doing, or, che did know what
he was doing, that he did not know II
was wrong to do it.
The law inquiries into the degree Oh
the insanity and it's effect upon the
speciic action of the accused.
A person who is without intellectual
facnlties-a congenital idiot, or who IS
permanently or totally insane-is not
criminaly responsible at all, for ne
cannot have had criminal intent
! person who is only partially OF
only temporarily insane is not respoh-
sible for an act done during ana IN
consequence Of a phase OF mental IN
canacity. For example, man suIler- :
ing from delirum tremens, whlch So
affects his mind that he is not con-
scious of the nature of an act done py
him in one of his paroxysms is ent.u-
ed to a verdict Of guilty but INSANE,
which means that he will be detained
until he is cured. &,
It is these partial or occasional
darkenings Of the mental facultles
that are the most usual and that give
,.;se 70 the difficulty Of determining
whether a person is, or is not respon-
sible in law for his act For some
thing done during lucid interval ai'
occa sional lunatic is considered to be
as much responsible as an entirely
sane person.
partially insane person, sucn as
those who suffer from delusions, ou1
who, apart from the delus:ons' are Oh
capable understanding, can only De
considered irresponsible for what ne
does in consequence Of his deluslon'
|1f A. for example, has the insane de-
fusion that B is seeking to Kill hlHl'
and that in self-defense he must Kill
p and does so, he will not be guilty
of murda. But the fact that A fancies
he is the Cham of Tartary will not
secure his acquittal if he poisons ms
wife. Doctors contend, however, that
one delusion is sufficient to corrupt
tho whole mind, and it is absurd to
snv that a man with a dclusion rea-
sons and acts in a logical way.
Nearly akin to the defense OF IN
sanity is the defense of drunkenness
as to which it may be said that a
drunken man must be presumed to
have intended the natural consequence
of his act, unless the jury is satlsneu
that his mind had been so aftecteo pS
drink that he was incapable OF know
inc that what he was doing was likely
to infict serious injury. A case IN
point in which it had to be decided the
liability of a man who, while drunk
had murdered a. girl 1t was held that
temporary drunkenness, weakening
the will and mental powers OF the
prisoner, was no excuse, and that the
criminal must be hanged.
It may be admitted thar the legal
tests are not perfectly satisfactory
but they have been arrived at atter
long experience, and so far the doctors
have not succeeded in framing an
alternative that would be at all prac-
ticable. It must not be forgotten, too
that in criminal cases the accused per-
son has the protection of a jury, and
that juries give the prisoner the bene-
fit if there is any zeal doubt as to
whether he was mentally deranged at
the time he committed the act,