A Last Word for Constance Kent

As a question bearing on the subject of criminal responsibility, it was perfectly right that the state of Constance Kent's mind, at the time she killed her little brother should be reconsidered in the Lumleian lecture lately delivered by Dr. Bucknill before the Royal College of Physicians. For the sake of her family, it is, however, to be regretted that Dr. Bucknill's arguments for her sanity found their way into the daily papers, as there are some pathological features in the case adverse to the doctor's opinion which cannot be fully discussed in a non-medical journal. There are strong grounds for inferring that Constance Kent was insane at the time she took away her brother's life, and if she was, it is neither charitable nor just that the stigma of guilt should be attached to her. It has been asserted that a sane motive for her crime has recently come to light. It is stated that she murdered her little half-brother out of hatred to her stepmother. What can be more improbable than that a young girl in her right mind should adopt such a wicked and horrible mode of vengeance ? At the time of the occurrence Constance Kent was at the age of puberty, when it is well known to experienced physicians that there may be causes in operation which are extremely liable to produce morbid feelings and actions, especially when there is any hereditary tendency to insanity, as in Constance Kent's case. When horrible crimes have been committed the perpetrators have generally been hardened in guilt. Hatred of a stepmother , unless combined with morbid feelings, is not sufficient to account for Constance Kent's action. She was a girl who must have known right from wrong, and in her right mind would have recoiled from the idea of taking a young life in such a revolting manner. We know that a strong affection often exists between half-brothers and sisters, and the instinct which induces young girls to pet any young thing, be it a kitten, a dog, much more a little child, is of the strongest kind. These facts render it more than probable that Constance Kent was not responsible for her actions at the time the murder was committed.