THE PLEA OF INSANITY. 



By Horace E. Smith, LL. D. 

 [Read before the Albany Institute, January 31, 1882.] 



The extraordinary trial of Guiteau for the assassination of Presi- 

 dent Garfield has directed public attention with unusual interest to 

 the defense of insanity in criminal prosecutions. The subject involves 

 questions of great importance, and considerable difficulty. It is the 

 aim of this paper to present briefly, in outline, the present status of 

 the subject, with some of the difficulties surrounding it, and the vexed 

 questions involved. Its main design is to stimulate thought and dis- 

 cussion, which may contribute to the realization of a more just, uni- 

 form, and satisfactory administration of the criminal law, when tlie 

 plea of insanity is interposed as a defense. The objective point of all 

 inquiry and discussion is, the adoption of such rules and methods as 

 shall be most likely to secure the conviction of responsible parties, and 

 protect the irresponsible when charged with crime, and convicted of 

 the overt act. Now, unfortunately, it often happens that guilty part- 

 ies escape through the plea of insanity, while sometimes, possibly, the 

 irresponsible insane are convicted and punished. This defense has be- 

 come so common, and is often interposed on such weak grounds, that 

 the popular mind has come to regard it with marked disfavor, and 

 courts, even, look upon it widi a wary and suspicious eye. And yet, if 

 legal insanity really existed when the alleged crime was committed, 

 there is no better or more meritorious defense known to the law. An 

 essential ingredient of crime, especially crime of the grade of felony, 

 is criminal intent, and this implies a sane mind, without which such 

 intent cannot exist. 



For convenience of presentation, and without special reference to 

 logical arrangement, the subject will be examined under three heads: 

 The Fact, the Law, and the Procedure. 



First, the Fact : 



The plea of insanity presents a question of fact for the jury 

 which is both a question of fact and a question of science ; not 

 a question of physical science, but of metaphysical and psychologi- 

 cal science. If the court and jury, and expert witnesses had to deal 

 with physical facts alone, which may be subjected to the test of experi- 



