Part 12 (2/2)
Question 3.-”In what terms ought the question to be left to the jury as to the prisoner's state of mind when the act was committed?
Answers 2 and 3.-”As these two questions appear to us to be more conveniently answered together, we submit our opinion to be that the jurors ought to be told, in all cases, that every man is presumed to be sane, and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes, until the contrary be proved to their satisfaction; and that, to establish a defence on the ground of insanity it must be clearly proved that at the time of committing the act the accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or, if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.” (The remainder of the answer goes on to discuss the usual way the question is put to the jury.)
Now, with that commendable reverence for judicial utterance which is so characteristic of the English nation, and is so conspicuously absent in our own country, it was a.s.sumed until recently that this solemn p.r.o.nunciamento was the last word on the question of criminal responsibility and settled the matter once and forever. Barristers and legislators did not trouble themselves particularly over the fact that in 1843 the study of mental disease was in its infancy, and judges, including those of England, probably knew even less about the subject than they do now. In 1843 it was supposed that insanity, save of the sort that was obviously maniacal, necessitated ”delusions,” and unless a man had these delusions no one regarded him as insane. In the words of a certain well-known judge:
”The true criterion, the true test of the absence or presence of insanity, I take to be the absence or presence of what, used in a certain sense of it, is comprisable in a single term, namely, delusion.... In short, I look on delusion .... and insanity to be almost, if not altogether, convertible terms.”*
* Dew vs. Clark.
This in a certain broad sense, probably not intended by the judge who made the statement, is nearly true, but, unfortunately, is not entirely so.
The dense ignorance surrounding mental disease and the barbarous treatment of the insane within a century are facts familiar to everybody. Lunatics were supposed to be afflicted with demons or devils which took possession of them as retribution for their sins, and in addition to the hopelessly or maniacally insane, medical science recognized only a so-called ”partial” or delusionary insanity. Today it would be regarded about as comprehensive to relate all mental diseases to the old-fas.h.i.+oned ”delusion” as to regard as insane only those who frothed at the mouth.
But the particular individual out of whose case in 1843 arose the rule that is in 1908 applied to all defendants indiscriminately was the victim of a clearly defined insane delusion, and the four questions answered by the judges of England relate only to persons who are ”afflicted with insane delusions in respect to one or more particular subjects or persons.” Nothing is said about insane persons without delusions, or about persons with general delusions, and the judges limit their answers even further by making them apply ”to those persons who labor under such partial delusion only and are not in other respects insane”-a medical impossibility.
Modern authorities agree that a man cannot have insane delusions and not be in other respects insane, for it is mental derangement which is the cause of the delusion.
In the first place, therefore, a fundamental conception of the judges in answering the questions was probably fallacious, and in the second, although the test they offered was distinctly limited to persons ”afflicted with insane delusions,” it has ever since been applied to all insane persons irrespective of their symptoms.
Finally, whether the judges knew anything about insanity or not, and whether in their answers they weighed their words very carefully or not, the test as they laid it down is by no means clear from a medical or even legal point of view.
Was the accused laboring under such a defect of reason as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or not to know that it was wrong? What did these judges mean by know?
What does the reader mean by know? What does the ordinary juryman mean by it?
We are left in doubt as to whether the word should be given, as justice Stephens contended it should be, a very broad and liberal interpretation such as ”able to judge calmly and reasonably of the moral or legal character of a proposed action,”* or a limited and qualified one. There are all grades and degrees of ”knowledge,” and it is more than probable that there is a state of mind which I have heard an astute expert call upon the witness stand ”an insane knowledge,” and equally obvious that there may be ”imperfect” nor ”incomplete knowledge,” where the victim sees ”through a gla.s.s darkly.” Certainly it seems far from fair to interpret the test of responsibility to cover a condition where the accused may have had a hazy or dream-like realization that his act was technically contrary to the law, and even more dangerous to make it exclude one who was simply unable to ”judge calmly and reasonably” of his proposed action, a doctrine which could almost be invoked by any one who committed homicide in a state of anger.
*”General View of the Criminal Law,” p. 80.
Ordinarily the word is not defined at all and the befuddled juryman is left to his own devices in determining what significance he shall attach not only to this word but to the test as a whole.
An equally ambiguous term is the word ”wrong.” The judges made no attempt to define it in 1843, and it has been variously interpreted ever since. Now it may mean ”contrary to the dictates of conscience” or, as it is usually construed, ”contrary to the law of the land”-and exactly what it means may make a great difference to the accused on trial. If the defendant thinks that G.o.d has directed him to kill a wicked man, he may know that such an act will not only be contrary to law, but also in opposition to the moral sense of the community as a whole, and yet he may believe that it is his conscientious duty to take life. In the case of Hadfield, who deliberately fired at George III in order to be hung, the defendant believed himself to be the Lord Jesus Christ, and that only by so doing could the world be saved. Applying the legal test and translating the word ”wrong” as contrary to the common morality of the community wherein he resided or contrary to law, Hadfield ought to have achieved his object and been given death upon the scaffold instead of being clapped, as he was, into a lunatic asylum.
On the other hand, if the word ”wrong” is judicially interpreted, it would seem to be given an elasticity which would invite inevitable confusion as well as abuse.
Moreover, the test in question takes no cognizance of persons who have no power of control. The law of New York and most of the states does not recognize ”irresistible impulses,” but it should admit the medical fact that there are persons who, through no fault of their own, are born practically without any inhibitory capacity whatever, and that there are others whose control has been so weakened, through accident or disease, as to render them morally irresponsible,-the so-called psychopathic inferiors.
Most of us are only too familiar with the state of a person just falling under the influence of an anesthetic, when all the senses seem supernaturally acute, the reasoning powers are active and unimpaired, and the patient is convinced that he can do as he wills, whereas, in reality, he says and does things which later on seem impossible in their absurdity. Such a condition is equally possible to the victim of mental disease, where the knowledge of right and wrong has no real relevancy.
The test of irresponsibility as defined by law is hopelessly inadequate, judged by present medical knowledge. There is no longer any pretence that a perception of the nature and quality of an act or that it is wrong or right is conclusive of the actual insanity of a particular accused. In a recent murder case a distinguished alienist, testifying for the prosecution, admitted that over seventy per cent. of the patients under his treatment, all of whom he regarded as insane and irresponsible, knew what they were doing and could distinguish right from wrong.
Countless attempts have been made to reconcile this obvious anachronism with justice and modern knowledge, but always without success, and courts have wriggled hard in their efforts to make the test adequate to the particular cases which they have been trying, but only with the result of hopelessly confounding the decisions.
But, however it is construed, the test as laid down in 1843 is insufficient in 1908. Medical science has marched on with giant strides, while the law, so far as this subject is concerned, has never progressed at all. It is no longer possible to determine mental responsibility by any such artificial rule as that given by the judges to the Lords in McNaughten's case, and which juries are supposed to apply in the courts of today. I say ”supposed,” for juries do not apply it, and the reason is simple enough-you cannot expect a juryman of intelligence to follow a doctrine of law which he instinctively feels to be crude and which he knows is arbitrarily applied.
No juryman believes himself capable of successfully a.n.a.lyzing a prisoner's past mental condition, and he is apt to suspect that, however sincere the experts on either side may appear, their opinions may be even less definite than the terms in which they are expressed. The spectacle of an equal number of intellectual-looking gentlemen, all using good English and all wearing clean linen, reaching diametrically opposite conclusions on precisely the same facts, is calculated to fill the well-intentioned juror with distrust. Painful as it is to record the fact, juries are sometimes almost as sceptical in regard to doctors as they always are in regard to lawyers.
The usual effect of the expert testimony on one side is to neutralize that on the other, for there is no practical way for the jury to distinguish between experts, since the foolish ones generally look as learned as the wise ones. The result is hopeless confusion on the part of the juryman, an inclination to ”throw it all out,” and a resort to other testimony to help him out of his difficulty. Of course he has no individual way of telling whether the defendant ”knew right from wrong,” whatever that may mean, and so the ultimate test that he applies is apt to be whether or not the defendant is really ”queer,” ”nutty” or ”bughouse,” or some other equally intelligible equivalent far ”medically insane.”
<script>