Year: 1873

Antoine LGger, in 1924 killed little girl at
Fert6 Aleps in France, drank her blood, and
mutilated her body. Notwithstanding strong
testimony to show that he was insane, he was
duly executed. Antoine Jobard. in 1851,
stabbed young lady to the heart in Lyons.
His reason was, that being the victim of GER
tain bad habits which he could not abandon,
he wished to die without mourning the guilt
of suicide. Medical experts attributed his
crime to homicidal mania; but he was found
guilty of murder with extenuatng clrcum-
"stances,r and sentenced to the galleys for
life. Jules -, at Bordeaux, had an aversion
TO his stepmother. In 1854, without apparent
provocatiOn and without reconciliation, he
shot her dead at the dinner-table. lie was
acquitted on the ground of insanity, and five
years afterward blew out his brains on his
stepmOther's grave.


These three cases are the text of very in
teresting and important essay from the pen OF
DR.. William A. Hammond, of which an early
COPY is now before us. 1t is evident that the
difference in the treatment of the three offend
ers presents gross anomaly. If Jules - was
fit to be at liberty, L6ger ought not to have
been put to death and Jobard was unjuStly
condemned to Imprisonment. The history of
American jurisprudence abounds with diff
culties Of a still more serious kind. We have
criminals pronounced insane at the time Of the
commission of particular act, and yet sane im-
mediately before and Immediately after. We
have murderers set at liberty Oh the plea
of a s1is of temporary mania which common
sense laymen are at loss to distinguish from
the old fashioned heat OF passion" :" and it
has almost become the rule in our criminal
practice that no man shall be held sane
enough to be punished who has committed a
capital offense under circumstances of more
than ordinary atrocity, or with sensational
incidents. Everybody recognizes the great
ness of the evil, and acknowledges that we
must find remedy for it, if society is to
offer any protection for human life. DR..
Hammond offers the only philosophical
solution of the question we have
ever seen. His principle is possibly not
the true one; it cannot be adopted without
the sacrifice, not merely of inveterate prepOs-
sessions, but of humane and honorable inn
pulses. Yet we must admit that it Is difficult
to refute his reasoning, and that the practi-
cal working of his theory would prove highly
salutary to the public.


DR.. Hammond starts with tho assumption
that the object of the penal law is not to
impose upon the criminal the just reward of
his offenses against morality, but to protect
society, first by deterring others from the com
mission of a like Oflense, and secondly by
preventing the convict from repeating his
crime. The intention of the actor regu.
lates the abstract quality of his action
in the eyes of God, but not in the
eyes of the law. The untutored street Arab
who steals a loaf Of bread, not understanding
the wickedness of theft, commits no sin in the
sight of Heaven but he commits petty lar
Ceny in the sight of society, which cannot
stop TO inquire whether or no he knew that it
was wrong to steal. 1t is a maxim of all
courts that ignordntia iegis neminem erclSat
Miss Anthony was not acquitted of the charge
of illegal voting the other day, although she
undoubtedly believed that she had right to
do as she did. Morally she committed no
SIM but legally she was guilty of
a crime for which the court punished her. 1t
was abstractly unjust to Miss Anthony to fine
her 500 for an action which she performed
under the conviction that it was both lawful
and meritOrious; but 1t would be injurious to
society if illegal voters were to be excused on
the ground of ignorance, and therefore the
law is obliged to punish her. "A law says
DR.. Hammond, "may be unjust as regards an
"indiWdual or a few individuals and benef-
"oial 70 society ut large: it IL then good