DELIRIUM TREMENS. SIMPLE DELIRIUM.
SOMNAMBULISM. SLEEP-DRUNKENNESS.
Delirium Tremens.—A temporary form of insanity, the result of excessive indulgence in spirituous liquors. The drunkard, under the effects of intoxication, “can derive no privilege from a madness voluntarily contracted, but is answerable to the law equally as if he had been in full possession of his faculties at the time” (1 Hale 32; Co. Litt. 247). The intoxication of the defendant may be taken as a mitigating circumstance, showing that the deed was unpremeditated. A person rendered incapable of using his reason by intoxication brought about by others, is not liable for his actions.
Simple Delirium.—Acts performed during attacks of certain diseases—fever, sunstroke, &c.—accompanied with delirium, do not render the individual liable to punishment; and wills made during the continuance of the disorder, if they contain no statement inconsistent with the known wishes and desires of the party during health, are valid, the law looking more to the good sense of the will as a proof of a lucid interval, than to the proved existence of such lucid interval.
Somnambulist, &c.—This is an abnormal mental state, closely allied to that artificially produced and known under the names of mesmerism, hypnotism, electro-biology, &c. It is commonly known as “sleep-walking.” In this condition the mind appears to become enslaved by one train of ideas to the exclusion of all others; the somnambulist, thus deeply bent on the accomplishment of a definite end, takes no heed of those objects which are in no way connected with the dominant ideas in his mind. Hence, he walks safely past dangers which, when awake, would disconcert his judgment and weaken his will. Somnambulism appears also to be closely connected with epilepsy. In 1878, a man named Fraser was tried in Glasgow for the murder of his child by beating it against the wall. He was acquitted on the ground of being unconscious of the nature of his act by reason of somnambulism. He had sprung from an epileptic and insane stock; his mother died in an epileptic fit, and some of his other relatives were insane. Thus it appears, if the somnambulism be proved, the accused is exonerated from any responsibility connected with the act for which he is being tried. So also, if a person be suddenly aroused from a deep sleep—somnolentia or sleep-drunkenness—the question may be raised as to his responsibility for an act committed at the moment of awakening (R. v. Milligan). There cannot be a doubt but that if a person be suddenly aroused whilst dreaming, he may unconsciously commit acts, the outcome of his dream, which, unless the possibility of this condition be recognised, may entail severe punishment on him. This state is closely allied to that mental condition which sometimes occurs in epileptics immediately after a fit. But in this, as in cases of somnambulism, the facts of the case would have to be most carefully scrutinised.
The following hints may be of use as a guide in determining the responsibility or not of the accused:—
1. The person must be shown to have a general tendency to deep and heavy sleep, out of which he can only be aroused by a violent and convulsive effort.
2. Are there any circumstances which, happening before the individual went to sleep, would produce a train of disturbed thought not entirely composed by sleep?
3. Did the act occur during the usual hours for sleep?
4. Was the cause of the awakening sudden, and does the act bear throughout the character of unconsciousness?
5. What were the subsequent acts of the accused in relation to the deed? Did he try to evade responsibility? This must not have too much stress laid upon it, for the wretchedness of the sudden discovery may so overcome him, that he may seek to shelter himself from the consequences of an act for which he is legally but not morally responsible.