F roceediiujs of the Royal Society of Victoria. 24o 



Lunatics, knowing that they could not ba punished, did 

 not commit crimes. He knew the case of one inmate who 

 would say to the doctor at times, "if you don't lock me up, 

 I will do sometlring." The older warders would say, "I think 

 you had better lock him up." Such men knew when the 

 impulse to do some violent act was upon them, and knew 

 it could not be resisted. Then in puerperal mania, he had 

 known a woman to say, " doctor, if 3'ou don't take the child 

 away, 1 will kill it ; if the servant goes out, I will kill it." 

 The woman was perfectly aware of the illegality of 

 the act, but could not help herself, but even the presence 

 of the servant girl would deter her. That was a strong 

 case, as it appealed to the sentiments. In ordei- to show 

 that the punishment of a criminal, sane or insane, 

 would not deter others, he referred to the case of a 

 woman in Brunswick who, on the same night that Deeming 

 was condemned to death, deliberately, as far as a lunatic 

 could act deliberately, went into a house and exploded 

 dynamite, and when she was about to be arrested she tried 

 to blow herself up. The lawyers would say she was partially 

 insane, whatever that might mean ; she certainly had a 

 sufficiency of reason to know right from wrong, but the 

 })unishment of the other criminal had no deterrent effect on 

 her. Mr. Paisden had alluded to the fact, tliat lunatics and 

 criminals received the same punishment, viz., incarceration. 

 He supposed there was no sane man living who would care 

 tA) Ije locked up as a. patient in an asylum, but it was certain 

 that that punishment had never prevented a man from 

 going insane. As to the punishment of lunatics, some were 

 responsible and some were not, but that was a matter on 

 which, as to justice, they should go to experts. As to the 

 protection of Society, he would say they were responsible. 

 In the present state of the law, the judges get out of the 

 difficulty as best they can. In a case of puerperal mania, in 

 which the patient admitted to the doctor that she knew she 

 was doing wrong, the judge said to the jury — " Gentlemen, 

 she said she knew she wa,s doing wrong, but it is for you to 

 say whether she meant what she was saying." That was 

 the way in which he got out of the difficulty. The question 

 of sudden impulse is a dangerous one to deal with. The 

 question ought to be — "Has this man got brain disease; 

 iias he got a certain kind of brain disease affecting certain 

 functions 1 Yes." The lawyers did not take it that way. 

 They seized upon the metaphysical point of right or wrong. 



