Possibly the
practical needs of the moment might be met by permitting such
a jury to determine whether the defendant had such a knowledge
of the wrongful nature and consequences of his act and such a
control over his will as to be a proper subject of
punishment.* This would require the jury to find that the
defendant had some knowledge of right and wrong and the power
to choose between them. In any event, to render the accused
entirely irresponsible, his act should arise out of and be
caused solely by the diseased condition of his mind. The law,
while asserting the responsibility of many insane people,
should recognize "partial" responsibility as well.
*See State vs. Richards, 1873, Conn.
The reader may feel that little after all would be gained, but
he will observe that at any rate such a test, however
imperfect, would permit juries to do lawfully that which they
now do by violating their oaths. The writer believes that the
best concrete test yet formulated and applied by any court is
that laid down in Parsons vs.
Pages:
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319