It is proper to add to the above remarks, which are evidently just in their conclusion, some considerations setting the question of moral responsibility in such cases in a fuUer light.
1. The distinction is well made in the beginning of the article that some intellectual defect must be proven in order to constitute real insanity in any case. It is not enough that a perversion of the moral faculties ex- ists, for that is the quintessence of guilt ; and on this ground he who should most effectually obliterate his own conscience would thereby the most completely ex- cuse himself in whatever crime he might thus render himself capable of committing. The mere fact that the persons laboring under kleptomania are frequently not conscious of any wrong-doing on their own part is not of itself an adequate plea in their justification.
2. The actual presence of mental imbecility in these peculiar cases is proved by the fact of the ubsurd man- ner in which the subjects of the disease steal. In the first place, they do not commit theft /b?' their own hene- jit ; they do not appropriate the articles taken to their own use, nor do they liave any occasion for them. The moral motive, i. e. gain, is evidentl}- absent, and their conduct is at once understood, when the circumstances become known, as very different from ordinarj' cases of shop-lifting. In the second place, there is usually a ])ettiiiess, oftentimes an absolute puerility in the acts committed, that marks the person as for the time '"non compos mentis." The articles purloined are frequently worthless in themselves, and alwaj-s relatively so. The conduct of the individual so strongly resembles that harmless and unmeaning gathering of sticks and straws which is one of the most common signs of lunacy, that everj' one informed with the case spontaneously sets it down in the same categorj'. In the third place, the im- pulse to these acts comes on i» sudden Jit.s, quite at vuri- eince vil/i the I'sual couise of the individual's conduct. A general good character is always held to be one of the strongest evidences against the probability of a partic- idar offence ; in these cases, the isolated nature of the acts, their sporadic occurrence, the peculiar line in which they take place, all go to show the abnormal condition of the mind at the time. The mere violence of the im- pulse to commit them, it is true, is not a valid excuse; for it is hard even for the subject himself to be sure that this is really irresistible ; but thej'rantic character of it, as he experiences it, and as it appears to others, is a legitimate proof of its insanity. In short, the utter and marked want of congruity between the behavior of the person under these circumstances and ordinary' ra- tional life stamps the act as that of a special mania, un- accountable to the individual himself in his lucid mo- ments. The foregoing criterion, we may remark, will serve to distinguish genuine cases of irresjwnsible klep- tomania from deliberate and culpable thievishness, whether habitual or occasional.
3. The question whether this may be a congenital ten- dency we cannot here digress to consider, except so far as to remark that this, if proved in the affirmative, would not really affect the main issue of moral responsi- bility; for human depravity is all confessedly inherited, but we do not. on that account, hold any one free from
KLESCHIUS
119
KLEY
the obligation to restrain its manifestation, and, by using the lielps within his reach, even ultimately eradicating it. In like manner we pass by the interesting cognate subject of the peculiar passion for intoxicating drinks experienced by the habitual inebriate, and its violent — seemingly overwhelming — tendency to return on the slightest stimulus, even after years of reform ; merely observing that here, whether in instances of inherited or acquired appetite, the disease — for it undoubtedly is such — is a compound one, i. e. both of the body and the mind, the latter only— as being the controlling element — being the subject of moral consideration ; and that the responsibility in these cases is at most simply shifted to Mill abstinence henceforth from the deadly seducer. This last thought, however, may essentially apply to kleptomania likewise ; for just as it is thQ first drop that brings back the drunkard's fatal appetite, so perhaps it was the indiUgence in the first petty theft that devel- oped the uncontrollable passion for purloining. In this light the subject has a grave lesson for all fallen human- ity, inasmuch as each son of man bears within his bosom the germ of every hydra sin, wliicli perchance needs but one fecundative act to cause it to spring forth into virulent hfe.
Klescliius, Daniel, a German theologian, born at Iglau, in ]Moravia, in the early part of the 17th century, was educated at the universities of Strasburg and Wit- tenberg, and tlieu preached for a number of years in Hnngaria and Croatia. In 1673 he went to Jena, taught there fur a time, and then removed to Weissenfels, where he became a professor at the gymnasium. Kleschius was a verj' peculiar character. He made many predic- tions, among others that the year 1700 Avould bring the final judgment day. He lived, however, beyond the time appointed. He died about 1701. iicQ AUfjemeines Hist. Lex. vol. iii, s. v.