Bloody Murder Test 2 Reading 3.5

What replaced provocation and drunkenness as the main defense against execution by the late 19th century?

Claims of mental disability or insanity began to replace provocation and drunkenness as more effective defenses to avoid execution.

What did Baron Pollock note in 1888 about murder verdicts and insanity pleas?

He noted the growing difficulty of obtaining murder convictions when insanity was raised, suggesting mercy recommendations should be accepted once a conviction was reached.

What trend did the 1890s show in wife-murder cases?

There was a marked increase in insanity pleas and verdicts, as well as in findings of “unfitness to plead.”

How did medical views on alcoholism affect criminal responsibility by the late 1800s?

Alcoholism began to be seen as a form of mental illness, weakening moral condemnation and allowing more defendants to receive insanity verdicts for drink-related crimes.

What law reflected the new medical understanding of alcoholism?

The 1898 Inebriates Act, which allowed courts to show leniency for crimes linked to intoxication.

How did prison medical officers contribute to the shift in verdicts?

They testified that “delirium tremens is insanity” and used medical diagnoses like “alcoholic insanity” to support insanity defenses.

How did the Home Office respond to the growing number of insanity claims?

It began ordering standard post-conviction medical inquiries in the early 1880s under Liberal minister W.V. Harcourt, formalized in 1884.

What concern did The Times newspaper express about insanity committals?

It warned that criminals were being declared insane after conviction, even when juries had rejected insanity pleas, allowing them to escape execution.

What example did The Times use to illustrate this concern?

The 1883 Cole case, where a man who murdered his child was convicted despite an insanity plea, but later certified insane and sent to Broadmoor by the Home Office.

How did Justice Willes express frustration in 1890 about insanity defenses?

He complained that judges faced growing difficulty in handling sanity inquiries and that even prosecutors were presenting medical evidence favoring insanity.

How did official medicalization actually help preserve personal responsibility?

It gave judges a safety valve—assuring juries that a prisoner’s sanity would be examined after conviction—thus maintaining the principle of guilt while allowing later leniency.

How did Justice Charles use this post-conviction system in 1889?

He persuaded a hesitant jury to convict Richard Townsend by promising a medical review later; Townsend’s sentence was later commuted to life servitude.

How did Justice Wright use a similar strategy in 1903?

In cases like Charles Howell and Alfred Nelson, he told juries to convict under the McNaughten Rules but promised later medical investigation, leading to mercy recommendations or commutations.

What was the outcome for Alfred Nelson after his conviction?

Home Office doctors found his mind impaired, and he was sentenced to penal servitude instead of death, serving twelve years before release.

Why did the insanity defense fit within Victorian ideas of responsibility?

It didn’t challenge the “reasonable man” standard—it simply removed a few offenders from the category of moral responsibility, treating them as outside normal humanity.

How did the insanity defense differ from provocation or drunkenness?

Unlike those defenses, insanity didn’t blur moral boundaries—it upheld them by isolating the truly “mad” while keeping the rest subject to strict standards.

What was the broader “English compromise” that emerged?

Society balanced stricter moral expectations for most people with limited acceptance of insanity as a legitimate medical excuse for a small minority.

How did this compromise reinforce the legal system?

Insanity pleas served as a safety valve, allowing the law to appear humane while maintaining severe punishment for the majority deemed “reasonable” and responsible.

What does Churchill’s decision in the 1910 Rawcliffe case show about continuity from the Victorian era?

Churchill, despite being a reformer, upheld the Victorian belief in responsibility—refusing clemency unless clear proof of irresponsibility or provocation existed.

By the early 20th century, how had Victorian legal attitudes evolved overall?

Exceptions to personal responsibility were rare and carefully controlled. Only insanity—and its medical variants like epilepsy or delirium tremens—could excuse intent, while moral and legal standards for “ordinary men” grew stricter.