298 



The Plea of Insanity. 



suflBcient for the prosecutor iii the first instance. When, however, 

 evidence of insanity is introduced, it must be considered in connection 

 with tlie presumption, and if, when so considered, the jury have rea- 

 sonable doubt of the prisoner's sanity, they must acquit. 



This is substantially the doctrine in New York as authoritatively 

 announced by the Court of Appeals. 



It is forcibly and plausibly urged in an approved work on Medical 

 Jurisprudence, that this conflict is due to the mistake of viewing the 

 plea of insanity as in some way entering into the merits of the ques- 

 tion of innocence or guilt. That the maxims of criminal jurispru- 

 dence constructed to guide in determining the question of guilt or in- 

 nocence have no application to the issue of insanity. That the pre- 

 sumptions of innocence and of intent assume that the defendant is 

 either innocent or guilty, but if the plea of insanity is good, he is not 

 a moral agent, and can be neither, The defense being," it is said, 

 **that he is not amenable to penal adjudication — that he is a being 

 outside of the law — the maxims as to guilt or innocence belong en- 

 tirely to another issue, and have no relevancy." 



This reasoning, so far as it applies to the question of the burden of 

 proof, makes in favor of the rule requiring a preponderance of evi- 

 dence to sustain the plea of insanity. And the weight of judicial 

 authority has been in the same direction, but the tendency seems now 

 to be in favor of the rule adopted in this State. 



Whatever may be said of the logic of this rule, practically its appli- 

 cation meets serious difficulties. If the burden of proving sanity be- 

 yond a reasonable doubt to the minds of an average jury be thrown 

 upon the prosecution, it is quite apparent that the task of securing a 

 conviction for a capital crime becomes exceedingly difficult. The 

 almost infinite grades of insanity, its varia'ble and accommodating 

 nomenclature, the conflicting theories of psychologists, the unsettled 

 rule of criminal responsibility, the facility of procuring extraordinary 

 expert testimony, and the weakness of juries would conspire to em- 

 barrass the prosecution, and insure impunity to crime. 



The question, — what is the true theory of civil government, and 

 the purpose of penal law ? has some bearing upon this subject. 

 Does human government deal with man simply as a membeivof soci- 

 ety, or does it take cognizance of his relations to the divine law, and 

 assume to enforce its claims and sanctions ? Is punishment for crime 

 designed as a protection to society, or as a moral discipline for the 

 ■ r:insLM'es?or ? Each of the theories indicated by these questions has 

 its advocates ; and there are, moreover, afloat in community some 

 very crude notions upon the general subject. The adoption of a cor- 



