November 4, 1825 in Paris, there was a crime that shook the whole of France.Young girl Henrietta (Henrietta) roots (Henriette Cornier) cut the throat of 19-month-old Fanny Belon - daughter of her neighbor, whom she looked after.
separate the head from the body, it is 15 minutes spent in the immobile sitting over the remains.When the mother returned for her daughter, roots told her: "Your child is dead."The mother did not believe her, tried to enter the room.Then the roots took her apron, in front of his mother wrapped him in his head and threw the girl out the window.When the stunned mother asked, "Why?" Cornier said: "This is the idea."There is nothing else out of her failed but another phrase: "It deserves the death penalty."
Of course, in those days it was a terrible, shocking crimes (now it's not so shocking).Yet it was not so transcendent in its cruelty (or anything else), to bring him a lot of attention.In the history there were also much more serious crimes (if we talk about everyday, "family" crimes).For example, in 1817 in the city of Selestá woman killed her daughter, her fried meat with cabbage and eaten.However, Henriette Cornier case has caused great public interest.Examination conducted Cornier famous psychiatrist at the time, Jean-Etienne Dominique Jean-Étienne Dominique Esquirol (1772 - 1840), director of Charenton, the famous mental hospital, where the dead and the Marquis de Sade and cartoonist Andre Gilles.In 1826 he published several books about her case.
greatest philosophers of XX century.Michel Foucault (1926 - 1984) Henriette Cornier case devotes a lecture in the course "Abnormal", which he gave at the Collège de France.The lecture was February 5, 1975.
Foucault argues that in the face of Henriette Cornier criminal mechanism of modern times for the first time faced with the problem of unmotivated crimes.
famous "Napoleonic conquest" in the right - the 64th article of the Criminal Code, adopted in 1810, said: at the time of commission of the act the subject was in a state of aberration, then there is no crime, since the subject did not know what he did,consequently, it can not be held liable for it.Therefore it is necessary to separate the perpetrators of the criminal act of two types: "responsible" (free legal entities) and "insane", iethose who can not be blamed for the crime;those who committed the act because of their disease state, due to "abnormal conditionality."In general, the first has a motive (and most importantly - free will in its commission), the second - no motive or will not.First sent to prison, the latter - to the hospital.So the first time the medicine begins to cooperate with the criminal law.After all, it is the task of doctors, psychiatrists - to determine whether a person is sick or not, and whether his illness could affect his mind and will.
What was in the case of roots?There is no understandable motive of her crime was.If the woman of Selestá ate his daughter, the motive is there, and it is clear: in 1817 in the area where she lived (Alsace), raging hunger.It killed and ate his daughter just because she wanted to have.Therefore, it can be reckoned, and murder (she passed sentence and executed).
Since no incentive, no grounds for crime Henrietta Cornier has been identified, the question still remains: why did she do it?Of course, it probably was crazy? ..
She was a few days under the supervision of psychiatrists and showed no obvious signs of madness.Therefore, the court could easily take her case and reach a verdict (without a doubt, the death).However, Jean-Étienne Dominique Esquirol lamented the fact that he was given too little time to observe Henriette Cornier.Then suddenly the prosecutor does that the judiciary had never done: he agrees to a psychiatrist ... and gives him another three months.
When passed three months, Jean-Étienne Dominique Esquirol (and two other psychiatrists - Adelon and Levey) makes a second opinion: Henriette Cornier still shows no signs of madness.However, as it may not be a mad person who committed such a terrible crime for no reason?
Jean-Étienne Dominique Esquirol continued to complain and said that the ideal option would be the examination carried out at the moment of action, then surely Henrietta Cornier could be detected madness.(It should be noted that Jean-Étienne Dominique Esquirol as his teacher Philippe Pinel ("the father of modern psychiatry," in 1793 the first "liberated from the chains of" patients Bicetre), was convinced that the causes of mental illness are in the "passions of the soul" and that madnessfully affects the mind of the patient.)
prosecution took this position: indeed, there is no motive for the crime, but if we look at the biography of Henrietta Cornier, we see a certain lifestyle, which is no good does not.She divorced her husband, she had two children out of wedlock, which it handed over to the shelter, she betrayed debauchery.She did not have reasonable grounds to kill the child, but it is all reflected itself in the crime, her whole life talking about tendencies in the crime.She (as a legal entity) is so similar to its action, which we have every right to punish the subject of this action.She had no delusions, no melancholy, no signs of madness.On the contrary, it has quite good, "diabolical" mind.For example, as she revealed she decided in advance that he would kill her neighbor's daughter.She did not commit a crime in a state of rage.She had previously prepared a room for the murder - to put next to the bed night vase to collect in her victim's blood.She begged a neighbor to the one allowed her to look after the child.She portrayed the love and tenderness to the girl.Finally, after the murder, she said: "It deserves the death penalty."Consequently, she had a clear view of the moral significance of the act.In addition, the girls throwing his head out the window, she tried, as far as possible, to hide at least some of the victim's body.
Foucault notes that the criminal law is doing a tricky operation - the absence of a motive, which is so confused by all, it tries to disguise the presence of ... intelligence, sanity.The prosecution contended that the crime was committed in his right mind, but are silent about the motive for the crime.
Perhaps Henriette Cornier murdered girl out of jealousy of her father, a lover whom she might have been?No, the roots of his mistress was not at all - hardly knew the family.
The defense used the same arguments that the prosecution used.Defence said that no clear motive for the crime.A lack of motive means having a criminal act of madness had committed it.It is known that the mood has changed dramatically Henriette Cornier from gay to sad.Immediately after the crime the defendant was sad, melancholic, fell into a stupor, did not answer questions, iedisappeared similarities between the subject and his actions.In addition, the day of the crime she was menstruating: it is known that menstruation has a definite influence on the mental state of a woman.
And the main idea of protection when Cornier said: "It deserves the death penalty," it meant that she was aware of the legal characterization of his acts.As a moral person, as a subject, ability to make moral judgments, Henriette Cornier remained the same.But her crime can not be imputed to it as a legal entity due to a disease state.Thus, the criminal law was the first to deal with the crime meaningless (unmotivated), but meaningless in only one specified level.On another level, there are some forces that can cause the subject to commit an act, a certain logic.
lawyer Henriette Cornier Fournier asked for help from a psychiatrist Charles Mark, who had no expertise, and consultation of the accused.Marc Fournier, and used such expressions: "irresistible call", "irresistible passion," "almost irresistible attraction", "domineering tendency, whose origin we do not know", "an irresistible attraction to the bloody deed."Finally: "barbaric instincts", "instinctive act", "instinctual drive".However, such a term as "instinct" was not then in the conceptual arsenal of any forensic psychiatry or mental health in general.Psychiatry then engaged delusions, illusions, fantasies, delusions, not inclinations, tendencies, "personal characteristics".
It is starting with the case of Henriette Cornier in psychiatry there is a problem at the level of the common abnormalities, even everyday actions.A person can be mentally normal, but his actions may be crazy - so teaches psychiatry since the mid XIX century.
After Henriette Cornier in psychiatry and criminal law raised a series of issues in the XVIII century.unthinkable: is the possession of the instincts of pathology?Giving vent to his instincts - a disease or not?Do abnormal instincts?Is it possible to dominate the instincts?Can I adjust the instincts?
in forensic psychiatry are beginning to appear brand new, previously unknown category, orders "crimes instincts": eg, necrophilia (c. 1840), kleptomania (c. 1860), exhibitionism (1876).
Now, when one is no longer surprised by serial murders "of a sexual nature" (unmotivated!), Does not surprise anyone, and this point of view (or rather above it, no one thinks): a person can be "partially insane" mad onlytheir actions and inclinations.So says psychiatry (see. Any interview, for example, with the most famous domestic expert on serial murders Boukhanovsky AO).But then, 180 years ago, the discovery (or rather, the invention) was a great shock.
Articles Source: vitaextensa.narod.ru dobizha.livejournal.com
