The Plea of Insanity in the Case of Lefroy
122 Art. VII?
Having expressed ail opinion a few days after Lefroy was condemned to death that there were sufficient grounds to j ustify the Home Secretary in granting a medical inquiry, and no response having been made to an appeal so numerously signed, we have thought it desirable to discuss iC The Plea of Insanity ” in this unfortunate case. Having been concerned in the matter we feel it an imperative duty we owe to ourselves, the public, and to the friends of the young man now gone over to join the great majority, to give the following particulars.
Within a few days of the termination of the trial we were consulted by some relatives of Lefroy with reference to our forming a conclusion on his state of mind. Certain documentary evidence was placed in our hands, and family histories were disclosed, all bearing directly on the case. Having carefully perused these we expressed an opinion that there were sufficient grounds for petitioning the Home Secretary to grant a medical examination of the condemned man. A few days subsequently we had occasion to go into the country, and on our way down in the train we read in the morning’s paper that we had been appointed to visit Lefroy at Lewes Gaol. Upon arrival at our destination we immediately telegraphed to the Home Secretary, expressing our desire that if such were the case we would rather make the examination in conjunction with a medical Government official appointed by himself. This wish was also subsequently expressed by us at the Home Office. We felt that public opinion was so great against the condemned man that we did not care to take upon ourselves the responsibility of acting as mental adjudicator in a case of so much public importance and interest. We only saw the friends on one occasion. We have never seen or had any communication with Mr. Dutton, the solicitor for the defence, beyond telegraphing to him on the day before the execution, and also signing the petition presented to us by his clerk, not asking for a reprieve, but simply praying that the Home authorities would sanction an inquiry into Lefroy’s mental state. This petition was subsequently signed by upwards of one hundred medical men.
Three years ago a young man presented himself at the house of a consulting physician in Brook Street, giving the name of Percy Lefroy Mapleton. This circumstance had escaped the memory of the medical man whom Lefroy then saw, until hearing of the murder, when, upon reference to his note book, the following entry was seen attached to the name, ” This person is evidently insane.” Lefroy, inheriting insanity on the side of both father and mother, commenced his career with anything but a hopeful future. His mother dies before he reaches the age of five ; his father suffers from softening of the brain for some years previous to his death, which only occurred recently. His natural disposition is described as being gentle in the extreme, and he is reported as abhorring all crime and vice. Of the early life of Lefroy we know but little. He was sent to Australia, and returned a short time back, but whilst on his passage home he conducted himself in such a strange manner as to necessitate being placed under absolute restraint?the captain and officers of the ship can testify to this. If, therefore, his real state of mind had been properly recognised by his family at this period of his history, a terrible calamity would have been averted. We hear of his going into theatrical speculations with an imaginary opera bouffe, supposed to have been written by Offenbach, which he called ” Lucette,” but which had no reality beyond his own morbid imagination. The extraordinary statements, founded on fabrication, which from time to time have been called “lies,” were, in our opinion, delusions, existing only in his diseased mind. We have had in our possession, and we deposited at the Home Office, a letter written to a friend of his, in which he stated that he had come into a property of ^10,000 per annum for life, and that he was going in for ” parliamentary honours.” Does this look like the saying of a man in his right mind? The letter to which we refer is dated May of last year. Within a few weeks of his penning this epistle he commits the murder for which he has met the death of a wilful criminal. Cunning is conspicuous in lunatics, and this quality had been shown throughout the whole of the transaction.
Commencing the crime with Hanoverian medals in his possession ; the endeavour to conceal the watch in his boots; sending one of these counterfeit pieces to the post office, and expecting to receive a sovereign in exchange for it. His conduct was very peculiar after the murder. It may be alleged on the other hand that there was distinct premeditation, but this is no argument against his insanity. Surely, many of the murders committed by lunatics are premeditated, and suicidal insanity is nearly always so. His method was not that of a sane man. With regard to his confessions, they appear to be nothing but a tissue of crazy incoherencies. He admits one crime after another. It is said that he did this to obtain a reprieve, so as to give time to investigate the truth of his statement. This opinion was eagerly grasped by those desirous of hurrying the victim into eternity. What possible evidence have we that these statements were not positive delusions, emanating from one, who at the time he is reported to have uttered this, was described as ” raving like’a lunatic and foaming at the mouth ?” We could adduce from the other documents we have had in our possession in further proof of what we urged to the Home Secretary, that there were sufficient data for an inquiry to be held. It would be as absurd to consult a medical man upon some knotty legal question as it would be to ask a lawyer to solve some psychological problem. Why then, in the name of justice and common sense, were not those experienced in insanity called in to report on his mental state ? The only official opinion as yet published was Marwood’s, who considered him sane, and the press grasped this opinion as carrying weight, and sent it forth to the world. THE I’LEA OF INSANITY IN THE CASE OF LEFROY. 125 In our opinion Lefroy was subject to paroxysms of homicidal impulse, in addition to other marked symptoms of insanity.
In homicidal insanity it requires one especially conversant with the subject to detect mental aberration. A visit to Broadmoor will convince anyone of this fact. Here we see persons convicted of murder, but subsequently acquitted on the ground of insanity, who since their confinement have been of sound mind; but they are, and rightly so, detained during Her Majesty’s pleasure. ” Homicidal impulse ” is often recurrent, and it is never known when a fresh paroxysm may occur, and what the result of such outbreak may involve. It is not connected with any special type of mental aberration, and is generally associated with monomania. The insanity here is often of so superficial a kind that it is most difficult of detection, the intellectual powers remaining seemingly intact throughout the disease. Persons so afflicted are liable to sudden paroxysms of mental excitement and murderous desire. No reason can, as a rule, be detected for the perpetration of the deed, and the crime is apparently quite motiveless. Many homicidal lunatics destroy the lives of those they love most dear. Some victims to this homicidal tendency are quiet, morose, and gloomy in their nature ; they are naturally a most dangerous class of humanity, and too often it happens that their real condition is not detected until some crime has been committed which brings their actions under the immediate attention of the authorities. Unnatural cruelties, impulsive desires are also present; the reasoning power, judgment, and ordinary mental symptoms remain intact, the chief characteristic being a morbid and irresistible wish to commit extravagant and murderous acts, no positive delusion being present. It belongs to a class of in sanity called ” moral insanity,” and one under which Lefroy laboured, the symptoms we have just enumerated being all present. His love affair, which was so conspicuously, we regret to say, brought prominently forward, had not the slightest foundation, but was purely an hallucination of his disordered fancy. According to the law of England, if it can be conclusively established that a prisoner knows the difference between right and wrong, he is therefore held legally responsible.
This is a monstrous doctrine. If we examine one hundred ordinary lunatics in any asylum, not, of course, including the demented and absolutely idiotic inmates, we find that quite ninety of this number are able to discriminate between right and wrong; and yet, according to the rule of law now laid down, these persons must be regarded as responsible beings, who, if they aggress, must pay the penalty for so doing. The opinion we originally entertained that a medical examination should have been granted by the Home Secretary is universally held by all those medical men with whom we have discussed the case. As far as the unhappy man himself is concerned, it may perhaps be a mercy that he is spared incarceration as a criminal lunatic for life ; but in discussing a case of this nature we should not heed the popular cry for vengeance towards a condemned man. It is to the immediate relatives and those with whom he has been all through life associated that we must extend our pity, and by whom sympathy was doubtless deeply felt for the family of Mr. Grold. It is the opinion of many individuals that insanity, if clearly established, should not exempt a criminal from the extreme penalty of the law. We do not, however, for one moment, endorse this, or credit that such a monstrous and unchristian doctrine should be tolerated by the more enlightened members of our community. There are undoubtedly some individuals among both the legal and scientific sections of society who entertain extreme views respecting crime and punishment?men not deficient in natural sagacity, and not uninfluenced by feelings of humanity, who, being educated in the spirit and prejudices of the old school, consider the throne, the seat of justice, and the State in danger if any undue mercy is extended towards those who violate the sacred majesty of the law.
” Not hang a lunatic! ” they exclaim, ” who has committed the crime of murder! Not hand over to the tender mercies of Marwood an insane person who has imbrued his hands in the blood of a fellow creature ? If doctrines like these are promulgated, if such principles are allowed to interfere with the legitimate administration of justice, who will answer for the safety of society, or the security of the State ? ” We have the happiness, however, of living in an age when such obsolete doctrines can exercise no influence upon the understanding, the humanity, character, and conduct of those placed in positions of great legal trust and responsibility. It may be asked, Why was the plea of insanity not raised at the trial of Lefroy ? But with this we have nothing to do. It was our opinion from the first that it ought to have been. Again, Why were the officials, on pain of dismissal, not allowed to divulge anything that occurred within the precincts of the gaol for twenty-four hours previous to the execution, in reference either to the prisoner’s conversation or demeanour ? The case, from first to last, was a sensational one; and under no pretence whatever could the public executioner be deprived of his victim. Reviewing the case calmly and deliberately, and taking into consideration all the concomitant facts, it would have furthered the interests of intelligence, humanity, science, civilisation, Christianity, and justice if a deaf ear had not been turned to the prayer of these petitioners, simply begging that the Home Secretary would grant a medical inquiry into the mental state of the youth then standing on the precipice of his fate.?Ed.
Disclaimer
The historical material in this project falls into one of three categories for clearances and permissions:
Material currently under copyright, made available with a Creative Commons license chosen by the publisher.
Material that is in the public domain
Material identified by the Welcome Trust as an Orphan Work, made available with a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
While we are in the process of adding metadata to the articles, please check the article at its original source for specific copyrights.