“Responsibility”—in Regard to Certain Forms of Unsoundness of Mind

Abstract

or in general, to right and wrong in reference to the particular act with which the accused is charged, and it was further added that such a knowledge was necessary at the time of committing the act, which test, put into question form, would be :Did the accused at the time know the nature and quality of the act he was doing ? There are persons, epileptics, for instance, and also those who suffer from impulsive alcoholic mania (probably the most impulsive among the insane), who even know right from wrong in regard to the particular act, yet who have not the self-control to prevent themselves doing what they know to be wrong at the time. Some authorities, in consequence, have urged that the standard test in regard to responsibility should not be the knowledge of right and wrong at the time, but the power of self-control or the power of restraint. The test would thus seem to be transferred from the intellect to the will, i.e, from the knowledge of right to the power to act rightly. This may be a shifting of the ground, although much can be said for it, and it may not be more difficult or illogical to ascertain the exact amount of self-restraint or selfcontrol· than to ascertain the amount of abstract knowledge of right and wrong which the accused possessed at the time a crime