34 Editors' Table. [January, 



the actor. Here the question of the ignorance of consequences 

 is restricted to its legitimate field, the instinct of self-preservation, 

 through which the rational faculty has originated. It is another 

 way of stating that the emotional or sentimental elements of 

 character have so far overcome the rational as to cause the com- 

 mission of self-destructive acts. Under this definition an act of 

 violence committed in savage society would not indicate insanity, 

 while the same act committed in civilized society, where means 

 of detection and punishment abound, would be properly regarded 

 as that of an insane person. 



In such a classification, criminals are those who disregard the 

 rights of person and property with a reasonable expectation of 

 advancing their own interests thereby. 



Benevolence is not an indication of insanity, for it is only a 

 reflection of self-interest over others, and is often an expression 

 of the most elevated form of self-interest. True reformers are 

 not insane, but religious enthusiasts may easily be so. The for- 

 mer have a definite idea of practicable methods of advancing the 

 true interests of mankind ; while the methods, or aims, or both, 

 of the insane enthusiasts, are at best useless and impracticable. 

 But that the one class graduates into the other, is incontestible. 



In the imposition of bodily restraint on the insane, reference 

 will of course be had to the quality of the act, precisely as in 

 the case of the sane. The nature of the act being established, 

 the question now standing in the statutes as to the capacity of 

 the criminal to comprehend the consequences of his acts, would 

 well be considered. He who, with deliberate intent, violates the 

 rights of person and property, is more dangerous to the com- 

 munity, than he who does so as an incidental effect of his aberra- 



The punishment of the former, shjould be like that of the sane 

 criminal, designed to protect society in two ways ; firstly by re- 

 straining the criminal himself from inflicting further injury; and 

 secondly, by furnishing persons in the community of similar men- 

 tal constitution with reasons for believing that it is contrary to 

 their interests to commit like acts. In this way the law would 

 furnish such insane with motives which would produce a 

 change in the balance of the mind, the result being sanity. The 

 punishment of death is as proper in such cases as in that of sane 

 criminals of corresponding grade. The death penalty might even 

 be necessary in the case of that lower grade of the insane who 

 do not understand consequences. In this case the only object 

 sought is the protection of the community, for motives are less 

 operative with these than with the higher class of the insane. In 

 either, the question of moral responsibility is omitted from con- 

 sideration, as being beyond the range of human knowledge. — C. 



The numbers of the American Naturalist for 1881 were 



issued on the following dates: January, December 31st, 1880; 



