Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 18.pdf/47

 THE GREEN BAG V. Was it the result of sudden anger or sentenced to eleven days' imprisonment and profound sorrow caused by unjustifiable a fine of 125 lire. provocation? This patent miscarriage of justice must VI. If there was provocation, was such be found, as stated, in a defective method provocation grave? of procedure. The questions, as framed by VII. Did the feccused commit the act the Court, were defective in so far as they did described in Question I while in such a not conform to the actual facts. defective mental state that though it did The jury were asked if the killing was not free him from responsibility, yet it done with intent to produce death; they greatly reduced such responsibility? found such intent lacking. They were not To these seven questions regarding the asked (and under the law were not allowed charge of murder, the Court added four to go outside the questions framed by the relative to the charge of disposing of the Court) if there was an intent to produce body, as follows : bodily harm, which resulted in death. That VIII. Is the jury satisfied that the was the fatal defect in the presentation by accused disposed of the body of his wife the Court. The press has been unanimous by throwing part of it in a cesspool and in its arraignment of the Court's lack of judgment. The prosecution has taken an part into the sea? IX. Were the acts described in Question appeal, but this has been done more to VIII committed during such a mental state "save its face" than with any chance of a as to free him from responsibility for such new trial. Certainly, Olivo's life and liberty cannot be twice jeopardized. This case will acts? X. Or was his mental state such as to strengthen the hands of those in Italy who greatly diminish such responsibility? are working on a new Code of Procedure. XI. Is the accused guilty of the acts As to the man himself, he is probably admitted by an affirmative answer to both as Lombroso.Marro, and other experts hold, or either of the questions in Number VIII? a criminaloid with an epileptic inheritance. To this somewhat disconcerting- set of While agreeing with his attorney who, in questions, the jury brought to the following his summing up, said that "Olivo belongs verdict; they replied affirmatively to ques to that class of1 unfortunates half sane, tions first, eighth, tenth, and eleventh; nega half unbalanced, classed by science as epi tively to the second, third, and eleventh, leptics, for whom society must have a feel and left the others unanswered. In other ing of pity rather than of revenge;" yet words, they found that Olivo had killed his justice demands that such types be placed wife without the intent so to do; they ad in a suitable asylum, and not be let free as mitted his disposal of the body, but found an example of the weakness of the social it was done in a partially defective state of defense. mind. NEW YORK, N.Y., December, 1905. Hence, the verdict found the accused innocent of criminal intent to kill, while NOTE: — Since writing the above, the Court of recognizing the objective fact of the killing Cassation in Italy made the unprecedented deci by him. Hence, he was acquitted of the sion of reversing the judgment below and ordered charge of murder. On the charge of dis a new trial. The jury at the new trial did an even surprising thing by finding the accused " not posing of the body, the existence of the more guilty " as a protest against the interference of the mental defect, during its commission, was Court of Cassation with the verdict of the jury so much in extenuation. For this, he was that tried Olivo the first time. Olivo is now free.