454 POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



NEW QUESTIONS IN MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE. 



By T. D. CEOTIIEKS, M. D. 



THE startling revelations in the scientific world are repeated 

 in some degree in the sudden opening up of a new territory 

 of medico-legal science, the jurisprudence of inebriety. Within 

 five years the question of the mental soundness of the inebriate 

 and his capacity to act or reason normally has been raised with 

 increasing frequency in a great variety of criminal and civil 

 cases. The rapid advances in psychological studies fully sustain 

 the wisdom and necessity of scientific inquiry in this field. The 

 medical profession has been suddenly called to determine facts 

 and their meaning, and give advice along this new line of in- 

 quiry, without precedent, and opposed by public opinion and 

 deep-rooted prejudice, and hence are often plunged into great 

 doubt and confusion. As a result, the strangest theories prevail 

 as to what inebriety is and is not, theories of moral and legal 

 accountability and responsibility, that presuppose a degree of 

 psychological knowledge that can only be obtained after cen- 

 turies of further study. 



To-day there are hundreds of persons awaiting trial or sen- 

 tence for crime committed when poisoned by alcohol. There are 

 hundreds of business contracts disputed and contested by law, 

 made when the parties were intoxicated. There are hundreds of 

 wills whose validity is questioned for the same reason. There 

 are hundreds of divorce suits where the inebriety of the parties is 

 the vital question on which the issue of the case turns. 



Although these topics have so recently come into medico- 

 legal notice, and are so complicated with theories and super- 

 stitions, yet they have already divided into three distinct theories 

 or points of view : 



First, the ethical and moral view, which seeks an explanation 

 of inebriety from the teaching of Scripture and the opinions of 

 theologians and metaphysicians. This view asserts that inebriety 

 is only a phase of moral depravity innate in every life, and one 

 that is susceptible of great growth and development, by willful 

 neglect and gratification of all the animal instincts. Medico- 

 legally the remedy is severe punishment, increased responsibility, 

 prayer, conversion, and the application of moral suasion. 



The second is the legal view, which is practically an outcome 

 or result of the moral theory. It assumes that inebriety is a 

 phase of savagery or the inborn tendency to lawlessness and 

 giving up of all control and restraint ; or the indulgence of the 

 lower passions regardless of society, law, and order. The legal 

 remedy is severe punishment, increased penalties, and suffering. 



