2 338. Mental Condition of Waking from Sleep.Indeed, there are very many cases in which the confused thoughts of awakening consciousness have led to acts disastrous in their consequences. And this is to be accounted for by the fact that there is a state between sleeping and waking, when the thoughts of the dreamer have as much reality as the facts he is assured of by his senses. There are many states in which, as in the views in a magic lantern, the real circumstances are dissolved, as it were, into the false circumstances of the dream. The actual things in the room are seen, but dreams are in the room too-dreams clothed with the strange reality of substances. Thus, it is not unfrequent in such a state of consciousness to see some one standing in the faint light, and still to recognize as the fire fiickers all the articles of furniture which are familiar to one. In such a state it is not difficult to conceive the presence of some vague apprehension, which any external circumstance, as the entrance into the room of some one we disliked, might raise to a feeling of actual terror, which might lead to acts which would, but for the possible irresponsibility of the agent, be criminal. Or it is easy to understand how, when the sleep has deepened with regard to some of the senses, the individual, moved by some wish which was strong even during waking hours, might rise and perform some act from which it required all the force of motives appreciated by a watchful, wakeful mind to restrain the individual.

339. Question of the Responsibility of Persons for Crimes Committed while in this Condition.-In such cases, the question as to the responsibility of the individual is one of much interest and importance; and care must invariably be taken to appreciate the ease with which the circumstance which lead to irresponsibility for criminal acts in such cases may be feigned. That many cases do arise in which the effects of dreams either being dreamt, or dreams from which the individual has just awakened, have led to acts for which it would be unreasonable to hold the individual responsible is beyond doubt. Cases are on record in which persons who have gone to bed without manifesting the slightest tendency to self-destruction, and in whose circumBR. INS.-31

1

stances there was nothing to warrant such a frightful act, have, upon being suddenly aroused from a frightful dream, destroyed themselves. "An old lady residing in London awoke in the middle of the night, went down stairs and threw herself into a cistern of water, where she was drowned. The suicide was supposed to be the result of certain mental impressions originating in the mind during sleep." It would be absurd to argue that if dreams are sometimes so [243] disastrous in their consequences to the individual himself that they should in no cases produce acts which would be hurtful to others. Some of the above cases indicate that this is the fact, and it is scarcely necessary to add that when this can be satisfactorily proved, the individual should be held irresponsible for the act committed. Just as a man is held irresponsible if he shoots another who in a joke comes up, and, with all the appearance of reality, demands his money or his life, so if an individual wakens from a dream in which he believes he has been pursued, and that the pursuer had the intention of depriving him of life, he would be irresponsible if he killed some one who was close to him, and whose conduct had led him to confound the reality with the circumstances of the dream.

2340. Real and Feigned Somnambulism.-The greatest caution, however, must be used before admitting this plea, as it is evident that it is not difficult to reproduce all the circumstances of such an act, while no terrer is actually present, and while no circumstances could have led to a misapprehension. The same caution must be used with regard to the determination of the responsibility for crimes committed during actual sleep. One circumstance will assist in distinguishing between real and feigned night-terror or somnambulism. The fact that it has often occurred before will tend to strengthen the belief that it is unfeigned. The circumstances which have produced it in times past should be inquired into, and compared with those going before the attack in which the crime of which he is accused was committed. The similarity of the causes will lead to a certain amount of confidence in

Winslow's Obscure Diseases of the Brain and Mind, p. 616.

the results being similar. If the individual in a state of somnambulism could be seen, as in cases in which it is simulated he may possibly be-for it is his object to convince some one of the reality of the sleep, and may therefore give them opportunities of observing it-some tests may be applied, which will indicate whether it is a real involuntary state, or only an imitation of some of the most prominent symptoms. Thus, as the mind is generally unconscious of what passes around it during the existence of the sleep, tests are not difficult of application. Suppose it to be simulated, and suppose the medical man, who is anxious to determine the fact of its feignedness, be present during an attack or paroxysm; if he choose a time when the somnambulist is standing quietly, and simply goes behind his back, and stands there without doing anything, the impostor will be most anxious to learn what the meaning of this manoeuvre is, and will wonder what the medical man [244]is doing behind him. This desire and curiosity will make him turn round; while the real somnambulist, being unconscious of the presence or of the action of the medical man, will stand in the same position, and his conduct will not in any way be modified by the conduct of those around him. Of course tests will suggest themselves in every individual case, and the rarity of its acceptance as a plea, and very high degree and conclusivenesss of the proof of the existence of somnambulism necessary in all cases, will prevent its adoption by impostors. Still, while we would guard against its successful imitation with a view to escaping legal consequences, we must still be prepared to consider the legal relation of those who actually do commit crimes under the influence of night-terrors, or of the dreams of somnambulism. That such crimes are committed we have proved.'

341. Responsibility of Somnambulists considered.And first we would say that, just as a man who gets drunk is by law held to be responsible for the acts he commits while

Dr. Maudsley in his recent work says that the American newspapers have recently contained the account of a boy who in his sleep killed another boy, having left his bed in a state of somnambulism, and mounted into his victim's room by means of a ladder. When in prison, he got up in the night iu a state of somnambulism, laid hold of a razor, and attempted the life of another prisoner.—Responsibility in Mental Disease, p. 251, n.

he is intoxicated, upon the ground that although when drunk he might not be able to avoid the commission of the crime, yet while sober he was able to avoid getting drunk; so upon a similar principle, we would say that the man who is aware of the existence of night-terrors or of somnambulism, which have in times past led him to the verge of the commission of crime, and who, although thus made wise by experience, has taken no means to avoid the consequences of this abnormal condition, or of the acts which are done under its influence, should be held responsible. On the other hand, it would be unjust to punish a man for a crime committed during sleep, and under the belief that the impressions of his dream were realities, if he was not in such a position as to take precautions against the commission of a criminal act. For example, if the act which has all the appearance of criminality was committed during his first attack, it would be unfair to punish him, as under such circumstances he could have taken no precautions against the events which really happened.'

342. Analogy between the Law as applicable to Delusional Insanity and Somnambulism.-Another principle ought to regulate the determination of the question of the responsibility of somnambulists. As when an individual who commits a crime under the influence of a delusion is held to be irresponsible if the imagined circumstances would, had they been real, have justified the act in a sane man, so the same rule ought to be applied to the acts of the somnambulist. If a man [245] rises in his sleep and goes to a neighbor's house, believing that he has called him a liar; if in consequence of this supposed insult he commits murder, we hold that he is to be regarded as responsible for the act. If, on the other hand, it could be proved from the words uttered by the somnambulist, from his acts, or from his own corroborated statement with regard to his impressions, that his neighbor was the seducer of his wife, the same act, it seems to us,

"In 1686," says Mr. Dallas in The Gay Science, "a brother of Lord Culpeper was indicted at the Old Bailey for shooting one of the guards, and acquitted on the ground of somnambulism—that is, an unconscious and therefore irresponsible activity." And a very similar case, which occurred in America, is given in Professor O. W. Holmes' Mechanism in Thought and Morals, p. 47-8.

should under such circumstances be regarded as manslaughter. If, however, the somnambulist in his perambulations was met by some one, and shaken with the intention of arousing him; if, owing to this circumstance, he became possessed of the idea that he was attacked, and if in self-defence he killed the man who would have awakened him, we are of opinion that such an act should fall under the category of justifiable homicide, and the individual ought to be regarded as altogether irresponsible. The proper course to be taken under such circumstances would be to deliver over the somnambulist to his friends, on caution to the amount determined on by the Court, to prevent him doing harm to himself or others.

2343. Reasons for the Rule proposed. It may seem to many to be illogical to graduate the scale of responsibility of somnambulists in the way indicated. It may be argued that if a man is to be held irresponsible at all for acts committed during sleep, it must be just to hold him irresponsible for all the acts which he commits during somnolence. But it is not so. Many of the acts a man commits during sleep have been thought over during his waking hours. Now, a man who was conscious of his liability to somnambulism, if the law was such as we have suggested it ought to be, would be careful not to indulge in waking thoughts which might lead to unpleasant consequences when he was asleep. It seems to us possible that a somnambulist could be so educated as to make up his mind to an act while he was yet awake, and might carry it out during his sleep. Such a trick would not avail a man under the state of the law which we have recommended. And besides, what seems to be a prudent regulation with regard to insane delusions, would surely be equally satisfactory for the regulation of those who are liable to the exaggerated impressions of dreams, and to be influenced to acts by such impressions. A life which is not infected by envy, hatred, or malice, will not even in sleep tend to criminal acts. nights are shadows of our days. Quiet consciences have gentle dreams. So much with regard to the 1246) relation of somnambulists to the criminal law. Something must be said with regard to their civil liability.

Our