Kleptomania

Insanity in the form of an irresistible propensity to steal. Wharton. See Looney v. State, 10 Tex. App. 520, 38 Am. Hep. 646. A form of insanity which is said to manifest itself by a propensity to acts of theft. Tayl. Med. Jur., Bell’s ed. 706. A weakening of the will power to such an extent as to leave the aflilcted one powerless tb control his impulse to appropriate the personal property of others. State v. Mc Cullough, 114 la. 532, 87 N. W. 603, 65 L. R. A. 878, 89 Am. St. Rep. 382. It is said to be often shown in cases of women, laboring under their peculiar diseases or of those far advanced in pregnancy. There have been instances of well-educated persons who have taken articles of no value and without apparent motive. If it appears that the accused was Incompetent to know that the act was wrong, the facts may establish a plea of insanity; id., quoting Tindal, C. J. A sharp distinction is made between kleptomania and the tendency to steal so commonly observed in the well defined forms of Insanity: the former is a defective mental characteristic approaching the confines of insanity on one subject alone, while the individual, on all other subjects, is perfectly sane. It differs from shoplifting in that the shoplifter steals for a purpose, and only those articles which are of value, while the kleptomaniac takes goods of any description, often of no use to herself and with no motive for their possession; 4 Am. Lawy. 533. In determining the responsibility of such persons for their acts, the principal sub'jects to be considered are the absence of any real motive, the knowledge of previous acts of a similar character, the history of hereditary Kleptomania is regarded as similar to homicidal insanity; Harris v. State, 18 Tex. App. 287; 1 Bish. N. Cr. L. § 388; and it has been held a valid defence; Harris v. State, 18 Tex. App. 287; but when it was rejected as a defence, the court would not disturb the verdict; Com. v. Fritch, 9 Pa. Co. Ct Rep. 164. As to irresistible impulse as a defence in criminal cases, see Insanity. A charge to a jury to apply the “right and wrong” test to the particular facts is a sufficient charge In a kleptomania case, since, if it is a disease depriving one of the sense of right and wrong as to theft, it met the test, and if it is merely an irresistible impulse to steal, it is no defence; Lowe v. State, 44 Tex. Cr. R. 224, 70 S. W. 206. Taylor (1 Med. Jurlspr. 820) points out that in most of the cases there has appeared; 1. A perfect consciousness of the act and of its illegality. 2. The article, though of trifling value, has still been of some use to the person (for instances, articles of female use, or on which money could be raised). 3. There has been act and precaution in endeavoring to conceal the theft. 4. Either a denial, when detected, or some evasive excuse. He adds that “it is now not recognized as a type of insanity by itself,” and gives an instance of an acquittal of a kleptomaniac upon the ground that, though not insane, there was an absence of felonious intent In an English case, tried in 1875, a clergyman charged with stealing, had taken goods when the shopkeeper’s back was turned and concealed them in his pocket. He at flrst denied taking them, then offered to pay for them, and then attempted to leave. At the trial there was medical evidence that he had suffered from brain disease, and had been quite deranged at times. The opinion of medical experts was that the accused did not know the nature or quality of the act he had committed, at the time he had committed it, and he was acquitted. Tayl. Med. Jur., Bell’s ed. 767., It approaches the conflnes of insanity, but while, as physicians, we might claim immunity, as jurists, we “can only believe that the best interests of society are subserved by holding the person responsible”; 3 Witth, & Becker, Med. Jurispr. 253.

A species (or symptom) of mania, eonsisting in an irresistible propensity to steal, See 10 Tex. App. 520,

See Insanity.