"
If a defendant intends to prove himself irresponsible for his
offence, why should he not be compelled to enter a specific
plea to that effect? Once he has entered that plea, the law
as it stands just quoted will do the rest. No reason has been
brought to the attention of the writer why the admission of
any evidence upon the defendant's trial tending to show that
he was mentally irresponsible at the time of committing the
crime should not be made contingent upon the defence of
insanity having been specifically pleaded either at the time
of his arraignment or later by substitution for or in
conjunction with the plea of "not guilty." This would deprive
him of no constitutional right whatever. There is no legal
necessity of permitting an accused to prove insanity under a
general answer of "not guilty." Then upon his own plea that
he had been insane he could instantly be committed to some
place of observation where a permanent medical board of
inquiry could be given full opportunity to examine him and
study his case with a view to determining his present and past
mental condition.
Pages:
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327