The legal doctrine of responsibility in cases of insanity, connected with alleged criminal acts / by Forbes Winslow.

  • Winslow, Forbes, 1810-1874.
Date:
1858
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The legal doctrine of responsibility in cases of insanity, connected with alleged criminal acts / by Forbes Winslow. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    7/44 (page 7)
    facts from which, when juries have found them, judges are to infer malice ; but it is no part of their duty to say how far par- ticular diseases affect the relation of persons to such tests; that, in the language of Mr. Justice Maule, is a question not of law but of physiology, and one not of that obvious nature to be in- ferred without proof. The tests of Insanity, as I conceive, pro- pounded in our courts of law are as follows, viz.:— 1st. That of the presence of delusion. 2nd. Of delusion directly associated with the criminal act. 3rd. A capability of distinguishing between what is lawful and unlawful—the capacity of knowing right from wrong—good from evil. All these legal criteria of insanity necessarily involve in their elucidation the question of responsibility. It is true, as Mr. Stephen argues, that, stripped of all techni- calities, the transaction, as between the criminal arraigned for the crime and the prosecution, stands thus:— The prosecutor says, “ I charge this man with having volun- tarily and wickedly killed A. B.” The prisoner replies, “ I did kill him, but not voluntarily or wickedly ; for I was com- pelled by the involuntary action of my muscles, and exercised no volition in the matter; or, I was prevented by disease from distinguishing good from evil, and, therefore, could not act wickedly.” But does not this trial of the question, whether the accused by reason of his incapacity could not act feloniously, unavoidably x'aise the questions, what is the nature of this incapacity ? how is it manifested ? what are its symptoms ? is it partial or general incapacity ? is it associated or dis- sociated with delusions ? does the mental disorder destroy the prisoner’s power of distinguishing between what is “ lawful and unlawful,” “ good and evil,” “ right and wrong ? ” Am I not justified in maintaining, without arguing the question in a “ Nisi prius” spirit, that legal tests of Insanity connected with alleged criminal acts have at various times been propounded from the bench for the guidance of juries? Dr. Johnson defines the word “ test ” as being “ that with / o which anything is compared in order to prove its genuine- ness ? ”