After a comparatively short period of deliberation the jury
acquitted the prisoner "on the ground of insanity," which may
have meant either one of two things: (a) that they had a
reasonable doubt in their own minds that Thew knew that he was
doing wrong when he committed the murder--something hard for
the layman to believe, or (b) that, realizing that he was
undoubtedly the victim of mental disease, they refused to
follow the strict legal test.
Nearly two years had elapsed since the homicide; over a
hundred thousand dollars had been spent upon the case; every
corner of the community had been deluged with detailed
accounts of unspeakable filth and depravity; the moral tone of
society had been depressed; and the only element which had
profited by this whole lamentable and unnecessary proceeding
had been the sensational press. Yet the sole reason for it
all was that the law of the land in respect to insane persons
accused of crime was hopelessly out of date.
The question of how far persons who are victims of diseased
mind shall be held criminally responsible for their acts has
vexed judges, jurors, doctors, and lawyers for the last
hundred years.
Pages:
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295