that these psychotic reactions
are indices of an abnormal personality. Is this defect of sufficient
import to render the individual irresponsible in the eyes of the law?
This question, I fear, cannot be answered very readily. Looking at it
from a purely juridical standpoint, we must say no; because an
individual is so loosely organized as to break down mentally under a
given stress, does not at all imply that a knowledge of the difference
between right and wrong is excluded. The jurist is willing to concede to
the proposition of a poorly-organized nervous system, a degenerative
make-up, a psychopathic constitution; but if these defects are such as
to manifest themselves in crime, society must be given the inalienable
right to protect itself from such defectives. The result is that either
no extenuating circumstances are considered at all, and the individual
is dealt with in the ordinary way, or he is adjudged insane and
committed to a hospital for the criminal insane, whether or no insanity
exists at the time of trial. Thus we have on the one hand a prison
population which more properly belongs under the regime of a hospital,
while on the other hand, we insist on keeping individuals locked up in
hospitals for the insane, whether or no they show actual psychotic
symptoms. If one of the latter class endeavors to obtain his release by
habeas corpus, a tremendous howl is immediately raised by the public
about the "insanity dodge", the worthlessness of expert testimony and
the unpardonable offense of letting loose upon society a dangerous
criminal. If we stop to consider for a moment, we must admit that in the
great majority of instances, we are not dealing here with dangerous
criminals. The man who as a result of a series of overwhelming
circumstances over which he had little or no control, kills another in a
fit of passion, is not necessarily a dangerous criminal. In the majority
of cases it is fair to assume that such an individual will never again
in his life have to cope with a similar set of circumstances. The great
majority of these people have led, up to that single crime of their
life, an honest, peaceful existence, and the instances of an accidental
criminal turning recidivist are extremely rare.

Society looks on complacently at the repeated sentencing of the habitual
criminal and watches without alarm the never failing phenomenon of how
each successive imprisonment only serves to deprave him more
profoundly; it