IMBECILITY. In Medical jurispru dence. A form of insanity consisting in men tal deficiency, either congenital or resulting from an obstacle to the development of the faculties, supervening in infancy.
2. Generally, it is manifested both in the intel lectual and moral faculties ; but occasionally it is limited to the latter, the t'ormer being hut little, if at ell, below the ordinary standard. Hence it is distinguished into intellectual and moral. In the former there are seldom aoy of the repulsive features of idiocy, the head, face, limbs, movements, being scarcely distinguishable, at first sight, from those of the race at large. The senses are not manifestly deficient, nor the power of articulation ; though the use of language may be very limited. The percep tive faculties exhibit some activity ; and thus the more obvious qualities of things are observed and remembered. Simple industrial operations are well performed, and, generally, whatever requires but little intelligence is readily accomplished. Occa sionally a solitary faculty is prominently, even wonderfully, developed,—the person excelling, for instance, in music, in arithmetical calculations. or mechanical skill, far beyond the ordinary measure. For any process of reasoning, or any general obser vation or abstract ideas, imbeciles are totally in competent. Of law, justice, morality, property, they have but a very imperfect notion. Some of the affective faculties are usually active, particularly those which lead to evil habits, thieving, incendia rism, drunkenness, homicide, assaults on women.
The kind of mental defect here mentioned is nal versal in imbecility, but it exists in different degrees in different individuals, some being hardly distin guishable, at first sight, from ordinary men of feeble endowments, while others encroach upon the line which separates them from idiocy.
3. The various grades of imbecility, how ever interesting in a philosophical point of view, are not very closely considered by courts. They are governed in criminal cases solely by their tests of responsibility, and in civil cases by the amount of capacity, in connec tion with the act in question, or the abstract question of soundness or unsoundness.
4. Touching the question of responsibility, the law makes no distinction between hub& cility and insanity. See 1 Carr. & K. 129.
In civil cases, the effect of imbecility is differently estimated. In cases involving the validity of the contracts of imbecile persons, courts have declined to gauge the measure of their intellects, the only question with them being one of soundness or unsoundness. and " no distinction being made between import ant and common affairs, large or small pro perty." 4 Dane, Abr. 561. See 4 Cow. N Y. 207. Courts of equity, also, have declined to invalidate the contracts of imbeciles, except on the ground of fraud. 1 Story, Eq. Jur. 238. Of late years, however, courts have been governed by other considerations. If the contract were for necessaries, or showed Tio mark of fraud Or unfair advantage, or if the other party, acting in good faith and ignorant of the other's mental infirmity, can not be put into statu quo, the contract has been held to he valid. Chitty, Contr. 112 ; Story, Contr. 27 ; 4 Exch. 17.
5. The same principles have governed the courts in cases involving the validity of the marriage contract. If suitable to the condi tion and circumstances of the party, and manifestly tending to his benefit, it has been confirmed, notwithstanding a considerable degree of incompetency. If, on the other
hand, it has been procured by improper influ ences, manifestly for the advantage of the other party, it has been invalidated. 1 Hagg. 355 ; Ray, Med. Jur. 100. The law has al ways showed more favor to the wills of imbe ciles than to their contracts. "If a man be of a mean understanding, neither of the wise sort nor of the foolish, but indifferent, as it were, betwixt a wise man and a fool,—yea, though he rather incline to the foolish sort, so that for his dull capacity he might worthily be called grossum caput, a dull pate, or a dunce,—such a one is not prohibited to make a testament." Swinburne, Wills, part 2, 0. 4. Whether the testament be established or not, depends upon the circumstances of the case ; and the English ecclesiastical courts have always assumed a great deal of liberty in their construction of these circumstances. The general principle is that if the will exhibits a wise and prudent disposition of property, and is unquestionably the will of the testator, and not another's, it should be established, in the face of no inconsiderable deficiency. 1 Hagg. 384. Very different views prevailed in a celebrated case in New York. 26 Wend. N. Y. 256. The mental capacity must be equal to the act; and if that fact be established, and no unfair advantage have been taken of the mental deficiency, the will, the marriage, the contract, or whatever it may be, is held to be valid.
6. The term moral imbecility is applied to a class of persons who, without any consider able, or even appreciable, deficiency of intel lect, seem to have never been endowed with the higher moral sentiments. They are un able to appreciate fully the distinctions of right and wrong, and, according to their seve ral opportunities and tastes, they indulge in mischief as if by an instinct of their nature. To vice and crime they have an irresistible proclivity, though able to discourse on the beauties of virtue and the claims of moral obligation. While young, many of them mani fest a cruel and quarrelsome disposition, leads them to torture brutes and bully their companions. They set all law and admoni tion at defiance, and become a pest and a ter ror to the neighborhood. It is worthy of no tice, because the fact throws much light on the nature of this condition, that a very large proportion of this class of persons labor under some organic defect. They are scrofulous, rickety, or epileptic, or, if not obviously suffer ing from these diseases themselves, they are born of parents who did. Their progenitors may have been insane, or eccentric, or highly nervous, and this morbid peculiarity has be come, unquestionably, by hereditary trans mission, the efficient cause of the moral defect under consideration. Thus lamentably con stituted, wanting in one of the essential ele ments of moral responsibility, they are cer tainly notfit objects of punishment; for though they may recognize the distinctions of right and wrong in the abstract, yet they have been denied by nature those faculties which prompt men more happily endowed to pursue the one and avoid the other. In practice, however, they have been regarded with no favor by the courts. Ray, Med. Jur.112-130. See IN SANITY.