A lecture on the relation of madness to crime : delivered at the London Institution, February 28, 1884 / by J.C. Bucknill.
- John Charles Bucknill
- Date:
- [1884]
Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: A lecture on the relation of madness to crime : delivered at the London Institution, February 28, 1884 / by J.C. Bucknill. Source: Wellcome Collection.
Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.
5/18 page 5
![tlie Times, July 22iul, 1854]. Lord Blackburn said: “I have read every definition of insanity which I ever could meet wdth, and never was satisfied udth one of them, and have endeavoured in vain to make one satisfactory to myself. I verily believe that it is not in human power to do ih” Since this was said before the Select Committee on the Homicide Law Amendment Bill in 1874, Mr. Justice Stephen has attempted a definition as follows. ‘ ‘ Sanity exists when the brain and the nervous system are in such a condition that the mental functions of feeling and knowing, emotion, and willing, can be performed in their regular and usual manner. Insanity means a state in which one or more of the above-named mental functions is performed in an abnormal manner, or not performed at aU, by reason ®f some disease of the brain or nervous system” (page 130). But this is a medical definition, covering the slightest deviation from mental health arising from hysteria or alcohol, from bile or gout. It includes states of feeling as sensation, which may not aflTect the mind. It includes abeyance of mental func- tions, which is not insanity; for, when the mental functions are not performed at all, there is no insanity. It is clear from the context that tliis definition of insanity would include more than Mr. Justice Stephen could allow to be irre- sponsible ; and no good is gained by thus analysing the mind, and detailing the results of the analysis, more or less complete, as functions which may be separately affected. I shall myself venture to make one more medico-legal definition of insanity. Insanity is incapacitating weakness or derangement of mind caused by disease. It seems to me to be practically useful and scientifically accurate to make a distinction beween weakness and derangement of mind. It seems to me also that all insanity which is not weakness wiU fairly come under the head of derangement in its widest sense ; for morbid states of the emotions derange the play of mind. But the all important term in the defini- tion is, of course, the attribute which points to the want of power to do something. In criminal inquiries, it means incapability of abstaining from the criminal act. It means that condition of irresponsibility pointed to by Lord BramweU in Dove’s trial—Could he help it ? It means that which has been much insisted upon by medical writers and great legal authorities, the loss of seK-control. Lord Chief Jus- tice Cockbum and Justice Stephen have both expressed the strongest opinion that this state of mind caused by insanity ought to remove respon.sibility. Other Judges, however, have raised strong objections to the term loss of self-control, and not, I chink, without reason. As a matter of fact capable of proof, there is more or less of self-control in the con- dition of the insane, and more or less loss of self-control in the conduct of sane criminals. But the terra incapacitating is less dubious. If a man have such mental disease that he is incapable of obeying the law, that man clearly ought not to be punished by the law. Justice Stephen says, “To threaten such a man with punishment is like threatening to punish a man for not lifting a weight which he cannot •novo ” (p. 172). In the relations of law to in.sanity, the (pie.stion of ca]>acity or inca-](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b22369508_0005.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
