118 CEJME AXU FEE15LE-MIXDEDXESS. 



Lombrosa, followed the typical Englisli method of observing' 

 and recording- facts. Dr. Mercier, in bis book on " Crime and 

 Criminals," pnblished in 1918, somewhat depreciates the value 

 of Dr. Goring's work, and points out that his figures do not 

 apply to criminals generally, but to a selected class, namely, 

 those who are caught and condemned, who are presumably the 

 poorest of criminals in mental endowment. There is some- 

 thing- in this. But I think Dr. ^lercier lays too much stres.s 

 on it, and it seems to me tliat the high percentage of the 

 feeble-minded amongst convicts indicates a hig-li. thoug-h not 

 so high, a percentage amongst criminals, convicted and 

 unconvicted. 



The question of feeble-mindedness has to be considered in 

 connection, first, with the trial, and, secondly, with the after- 

 trial treatment of criminals. In regard to the trial of 

 criminals, it is difficult to suggest any reform. It is true that 

 in the Mental Disorders Act of 1916 feeble-mindedness may 

 be said to be treated as a form of insanity. But mere insanity 

 is not a defence in criminal laAv. The crime must be the result 

 of insanity. In my opinion, the feeble-mindedness of a person 

 does not free him from criminal responsibility. It cannot be 

 said that the feelile-minded person does not understand the 

 nature of the criminal act which he commits, or does not know 

 that it is wrong', or that he suffers from delusions or acts under 

 an irresistible impulse: and those are some of the tests that are 

 applied when the defence of insanity is made. 



It is quite true that in criminal law a child up to seven 

 years old is regarded as incapable of criminal intention, and 

 that fitom seven to fourteen years he is presumed to be 

 incapable of criminal intention, or, in other words, it must be 

 .proved that he knew the act was wrong. Thus the law might 

 take the position that the feeble-minded prisoner, having- the 

 mentality of -a child of not more than twelve years old, must 

 be presumed to be incapable of criminal intention. But thoug-h 

 this position is logical, I do not think it would be satisfactory 

 in practice. 



Thus it would seem that the verdict in the case of the 

 feeble-minded who has r-ommitted a crime must continue to be 

 one of g'uilty. But feeble-mindedness should be looked upon 

 as lessening- the responsibility of the prisoner, as, in fact, 

 intoxication is looked on at present. "Where it is proved, as it 

 ought to be in the case of the prisoners who have already been 

 inmates of a prison, the sentence should be confinement in an 

 institution for the feeble-minded. 



The after-trial treatment of a feeble-minded criminal 

 should undoubtedly be dift'erent from that of the normal 

 criminal. It is doubtful whether the severer forms of punish- 

 ment, such as whipping', spare diet, solitary confinement, 

 serve any g-ood purpose in the case of the feeble-minded. 

 Moreover, release from prison on the termination of a sentence 

 for a fixed period will in ordinary circumstances lead to a 

 relapse into crime. Separate places of confinement for 

 the feeble-minded are required, and special treatment. 

 Such places of confinement would involve an initial expense, 



