It would be ridiculous, for
example, to lay down a general rule that no person suffering
from hysterical insanity should be punished for his acts.
Yet, even so, such a classification would instantly remedy
that anachronism in our present law which refuses to recognize
as irresponsible those born without power to control their
emotions--the psychopathic inferiors of science, and the real
victims of dementia praecox.
Of course, if the insanity under which the defendant labors
bears no relation to or connection with the deed for which he
is on trial, there would logically be no reason why his
insanity on other subjects should be any defence to his crime.
For example, there is the well-known case of the Harvard
professor who was apparently sane on all other matters, yet
believed himself to be possessed of glass legs. Had this man
in wanton anger struck and killed another, his "glass leg"
delusion could not logically have availed him. If, however,
he had struck and killed one who he believed was going to
shatter his legs it might have been important.
Pages:
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317