1. Was the act an isolated event in the life of the culprit? Has it the appearance of spontaneity, or was it the culminating point of a life spent in so-called criminal acts?
2. Absence of a motive for the committal of the deed.—The absence of an apparent motive is no proof of an unsound mind; the moving principle may be “the conscious impulse to the illegal gratification of a selfish desire.”
3. The presence or absence of a well-concerted plan of action is a diagnostic sign of little value.—Casper remarks that “only in one case can the examination of the systematic planning of the deed afford any information, and that is when these plans and preparations themselves evince the stamp of a confused intellect, and betray the hazy consciousness, the mental darkness, in which the culprit was involved.”
4. A dominant delusion may be so concealed as to be for a time undiscoverable.—The case of the man who gave no indication of his madness till he was asked to sign the order for his release, when he signed Christ, is an example how carefully a delusion may be concealed even during a most careful examination. Questions directed to this point showed that he laboured under all the errors which such a delusion might suggest.
5. It may “easily be conceived that insane persons, whose unreason affects only one train of thought more or less restricted, yet labour in other respects under disorders of feeling which influence their conduct and their actions and behaviour without materially affecting their judgment: and that many of such deranged persons, who often conduct themselves tolerably well in a lunatic asylum, and while living among strangers with whom they have no relations, and against whom they have no prejudices or imaginary reason of complaint; subjected, besides, to the rules of the house and to an authority that nobody attempts to dispute; would, nevertheless, if restored to liberty and residing in the midst of their families, become insupportable, irritable at the slightest contradiction, abusive, impatient of the least remark on their conduct, and liable to be provoked by trifles to the most dangerous acts of violence. If, under such circumstances, a lunatic should commit any act of injury or serious damage to another, would it be just to punish him; because it cannot be made apparent that the action has any reference to, or connection with, the principal delusion which is known to cloud his judgment, it being apparent that his moral faculties have undergone a total morbid perversion?”
6. Insanity with Lucid Intervals.—Haslam, Ray, and others appear to deny the possibility of lucid intervals; but M. Esquirol, on the other hand, fully recognises the existence of this form of insanity. In a legal sense, a temporary cessation of the insanity constitutes a lucid interval, but the cessation must be complete, and not merely a remission of the symptoms. The interval must be of some duration; and when continuous insanity has been proved, the onus of proving a lucid interval in civil cases rests with the party trying to support the validity of a deed executed during the alleged interval. “If you can establish,” says Sir W. Wynne, “that the party afflicted habitually by a malady of the mind has intermissions, and if there was an intermission of the disorder at the time of the act, that being proved is sufficient, and the general habitual insanity will not affect it, but the effect of it is this—it inverts the order of proof and presumption; for, until proof of habitual insanity, the presumption is that the party agent, like all human creatures, was rational; but when an habitual insanity in the mind of the person who does the act is established, then the party who would take advantage of the fact of an interval of reason must prove it.” In civil cases the law recognises the validity of wills made during lucid intervals, and has even taken the reasonableness of a will as a proof of a lucid interval.
7. Have measures been taken by the culprit to escape punishment?
The classification of insanity adopted here is that given by Ray, and is sufficient for all practical purposes:
| I N S A N I T Y. | Defective development of the faculties. | Idiocy | 1. Resulting from |
| congenital defect. | |||
| 2. Resulting from an | |||
| obstacle to the | |||
| development of the | |||
| faculties supervening | |||
| in infancy. | |||
| Imbecility | 1. Resulting from | ||
| congenital defect. | |||
| 2. Resulting from an | |||
| obstacle to the | |||
| development of the | |||
| faculties supervening | |||
| in infancy. | |||
| Lesion of the faculties subsequent to their development. | Mania | 1. Intellectual— | |
| (a) General. | |||
| (b) Partial. | |||
| 2. Affective— | |||
| (a) General. | |||
| (b) Partial. | |||
| Dementia | 1. Consecutive to mania, | ||
| or injuries of | |||
| the brain. | |||
| 2. Senile, peculiar to | |||
| old age. |