The theory is to develop the higher nature of man by causing pain and suffering in the lower nature; in this way to rouse up the brain and will power to regain control of the animal part. Three hundred years ago Lord Coke, of England, held that inebriety always aggravated the offense, and the punishment should rather be increased. This has been the corner-stone of the legal view of inebriety up to very recent times.
The third theory is the scientific and medical view. This affirms inebriety to be a physical condition, the tendency of which is often inherited and also acquired; that this physical condition is always a disease, a modified or pronounced form of insanity. In other cases it is a positive symptom of insanity; also, it is a form of brain degeneration that, like other diseases, has distinct causes, development, progress, and decline. It is also urged that the continuous use of alcohol always causes disturbances of brain circulation, and is followed by brain congestion, brain paralysis, and impaired senses; the result of which is incapacity to realize the nature and character of acts, the judgment is defective, and the control is lessened and is not normal. Medico-legally this theory regards the inebriate as diseased and incapacitated to act sanely, to be treated as a sick man and placed under medical and legal care and control, until recovery or for life.
The first two theories assume perfect sanity in all cases of inebriety, and assert that the remedy is to be more severe punishment, and accountability to law and society. The third theory recognizes a physical condition, and demands a scientific study of each case before the remedy or treatment can be determined. Another theory has been asserted, that in some cases inebriety was a vice at first, then later a disease; that in some cases punishment is the remedy, and in others medical care and treatment. Such are some of the theories and standpoints from which the subject of inebriety is approached medico-legally.
The confusion and doubt of the exact nature of inebriety is due in a large part to the failure to study these cases independently. The dictum of judges, the teachings of theologians, newspaper views, and public opinion, are too often the sources from which medical men derive their views. This was very apparent in a contested will case, where five medical men testified to the mental capacity of a chronic inebriate who willed his property to a mistress. The judge declared he should act on his own judgment, and decide the man unsound and incapable. A man set fire to a church without apparent motive. Three physicians swore to his sanity, although he had delirium tremens repeatedly and was a chronic inebriate, and intoxicated at the time. The jury decided otherwise.
