Very generally drunkenness is recognised as a ground of extenuation. We hear from various sources that the North American Indians were exceedingly merciful to intoxicated offenders. According to Charlevoix, the Iroquois “suffer themselves to be ill used by drunken people, without defending themselves, for fear of hurting them. If you endeavour to shew them the folly of this conduct, they say, ‘Why should we hurt them? They know not what they do.’” Even “if a savage kills another belonging to his cabin, if he is drunk (and they often counterfeit drunkenness when they intend to commit such actions),[183] all the consequence is, that they pity and weep for the dead. ‘It is a misfortune (they say), the murderer knew not what he did.’”[184] James makes a similar statement with reference to the Omahas.[185] In his description of the aborigines of Pennsylvania, Blome observes, “It is rare that they fall out, if sober; and if drunk they forgive it, saying, it was the drink, and not the man that abused them.”[186] Benjamin Franklin tells us of some Indians who had misbehaved in a state of intoxication, and in consequence sent three of their old men to apologise; “the orator acknowledged the fault, but laid it upon the rum, and then endeavoured to excuse the rum.”[187] The detestable deeds which men did under the influence of pulcre, or the native Mexican wine, the Aztecs attributed to the god of wine or to the wine itself, and not in the least to the drunken man. Indeed, if anybody spoke ill of or insulted an intoxicated person, he was liable to be punished for disrespect to the god by which that person was supposed to be possessed. Hence, says Sahagun, it was believed, not without ground, that the Indians made themselves drunk on purpose to commit with impunity crimes for which they would have been punished if they had committed them sober.[188]
[183] Cf. Hennepin, op. cit. p. 71.
[184] Charlevoix, op. cit. ii. 23, 25. According to Loskiel (History of the Mission of the United Brethren among the Indians in North America, i. 16), the Iroquois, though they laid all the blame on the rum, punished severely murder committed in drunkenness.
[185] James, Expedition from Pittsburgh to the Rocky Mountains, i. 265.
[186] Blome, in Buchanan, North American Indians, p. 328.
[187] Franklin, Autobiography, ch. ix. (Works, i. 164).
[188] Sahagun, Historia general de las cosas de Nueva España, i. 22, vol. i. 40.
Among the Karens of India “men are not unfrequently killed in drunken broils; but such cases are not allowed by Karen custom to be a cause of action. No price can be demanded for persons who lose their lives in such circumstances. It is argued there was no malice, no intention to kill; and the person who died was perhaps as much to blame as the man who killed him; and people are not well responsible for what they do in a state of intoxication.”[189] Among the Kandhs, “for wounds, however serious, given under circumstances of extreme provocation, or in a drunken squabble, slight compensation is awarded.”[190] Among some of the Marshall Islanders blood-revenge is generally not taken for an act of homicide which has been committed in drunkenness, compensation being accepted instead.[191] So, also, according to the ancient law of the East Frisians, a man who has killed another when drunk is allowed “to buy off his neck by a sum of money paid to the king and to the relatives of the slain.”[192]
[189] Mason, in Jour. As. Soc. Bengal, xxxvii. pt. ii. 146.
[190] Macpherson, Memorials of Service in India, p. 82.