2. RAPE AND LUST-MURDER.

(Austrian Statutes, § 125, 127; Austrian Abridgment, § 192; German Statutes, § 177.) By the term rape, the jurist understands coitus, outside of the marriage relation, with an adult, enforced by means of threats or violence; or with an adult in a condition of defenselessness or unconsciousness; or with a girl under the age of fourteen years. Immissio penis, or, at least, conjunctio membrorum (Schütze), is necessary to establish the fact. To-day, rape on children is remarkably frequent. Hofmann (“Ger. Med.,” i, p. 155) and Tardieu (“Attentats”) report horrible cases. The latter establishes the fact that, from 1851 to 1875 inclusive, 22,017 cases of rape came before the courts in France, and, of these, 17,657 were committed on children. The crime of rape presumes a temporary, powerful excitation of sexual desire, induced by excess in alcohol, or by some other condition. It is highly improbable that a man morally intact would commit this most brutal crime. Lombroso (Goltdammer’s _Arch._) considers the majority of men who commit rape to be degenerate, particularly when the crime is done on children or old women. He asserts that, in many such men, he has found actual signs of degeneracy. It is a fact that rape is very often the act of degenerate male imbeciles,[131] where, under some circumstances, the bond of blood is not respected. Cases as a result of mania, satyriasis, and epilepsy, have occurred, and are to be kept in mind. The crime of rape may follow the murder of the victim.[132] There may be unintentional murder, murder to destroy the only witness of the crime, or murder out of lust (_v. supra_). Only for cases of the latter kind should the term _lust-murder_[133] be used. The motives of lust-murder have been previously considered. The cases given in illustration are characteristic of the manner of the deed. The presumption of a murder out of lust is always given when injuries of the genitals are found, the character and extent of which are such as could not be explained by merely a brutal attempt at coitus; and, still more, when the body has been opened, or parts (intestines, genitals) torn out, and are wanting.[134] Lust-murders dependent upon psychopathic conditions are never committed with accomplices. Case 184. _Weak-mindedness, Epilepsy. Attempt at Rape; Murder._—On the evening of May 27, 1888, an eight-year-old boy, Blasius, was playing with other children in the neighborhood of the village of S. An unknown man came along and enticed the boy into the woods. The next day the boy’s body was found in a ravine, with the abdomen slit open, an incised wound in the cardiac region, and two stab-wounds in the neck. Since, on May 21st, a man, answering to the description given of the murderer by the children, had attempted to treat a six-year-old girl in a similar manner, and had only accidentally been detected, it was presumed to be a case of lust-murder. It was proved that the body was found in a heap, with only the shirt and jacket on; also, that there was a long incision in the scrotum. Suspicion fell upon a peasant, E.; but, on confrontation with the children, it was not possible to identify him with the stranger who had enticed the boy into the woods. Besides, with the help of his sister, he proved an alibi. The untiring efforts of the officers brought new evidence to light, and finally E. confessed. He had enticed the girl into the woods, thrown her down, exposed her genitals, and was about to abuse her; but, as she had an eruption on her head, and was crying loudly, his desire cooled, and he fled. After he enticed the boy into the woods, with the pretext of showing him a bird’s nest, he was taken with a desire to abuse him. Since the boy refused to take off his trousers, he did it for him; and when the boy began to cry out, he stabbed him twice in the neck. Then he made an incision, just above the pubes, in imitation of female genitals, in order to use it to satisfy his lust. But, since the body grew cold immediately, he lost his desire, and, cleaning his knife and hands near the body, he fled. When he saw the boy dead, he was filled with fear, and his limbs became weak. During his examination E. looked apathetically at a garland. He had acted in a state of mental weakness. He could not understand how he came to do such a thing. He must have been beside himself; for he often became senseless, so that he would almost fall down. Previous employers report that he had periods when he was devoid of thought and confused, doing no work all day, and avoiding others. His father states that E. learned with difficulty, was unskillful at work, and often so obstinate that one did not think to punish him. At such times he would not eat, and occasionally ran away and remained all day. At such times he also seemed quite lost in thought, screwed his face up, and said senseless things. When quite a boy, he still sometimes wet the bed, and often came home from school with wet or soiled clothing. He was very restless in sleep, so that no one could sleep beside him. He had never had playmates. He had never been cruel, bad, or immoral. His mother gave similar testimony; and further, that, in his fifth year, E. first had convulsions, and once lost the power of speech for seven days. Sometime about his seventh year he once had convulsions for forty days, and was also dropsical. Later, too, he was often seized in sleep, and he often then talked in his sleep; and mornings, after such nights, the bed was found wet. At times it was impossible to do anything with him. Since his mother did not know whether it was due to viciousness or disease, she did not venture to punish him. Since his convulsions, in his seventh year, he had failed so in mind that he could not learn even the common prayers; and he also became very irascible. Neighbors, persons prominent in the community, and teachers, state that E. was peculiar, weak-minded, and irascible; that at times he was very strange, and apparently in an exceptional mental state. The examinations of the medical experts gave the following results:— E. is tall, slim, and poorly nourished. His head measures 53 centimetres in circumference. The cranium is rhombic, and in the occipital region flattened. His expression is devoid of intelligence; his glance is fixed, expressionless; his attitude is careless, and his body is bent forward. Movements are slow and heavy. Genitals normally developed. E.’s whole appearance points to torpidity and mental weakness. There are no signs of degenerative marks, no abnormality of the vegetative organs, and no disturbances of motility or sensibility. He comes of a perfectly healthy family. He knows nothing of convulsions or of wetting his bed at night, but he states that, of late years, he has had attacks of vertigo and loss of mind. At first, in circumlocution, he denies the murder. Later, in great contrition, before the examining judge, he confessed all, and gave a clear motive for his crime. He had never had such a thought before. He has been given to onanism for years; he even practiced it twice daily. He states that, for want of courage, he had never ventured to ask coitus of a woman, though in dreams such scenes exclusively passed before him. Neither in dreams nor in the waking state had he ever had perverse instincts; particularly no sadistic or contrary sexual feelings. Too, the sight of the slaughter of animals had never interested him. When he enticed the girl into the woods, his desire was to satisfy his lust with her; but how it happened that he tried such a thing with a boy, he could not explain. He thought he must have been out of his mind at that time. The night after the murder he could not sleep on account of fear; he had twice confessed already, to ease his conscience. He was only afraid of being hung. This should not be done, as he had done the deed in a weak-minded condition. He could not tell why he had cut open the boy’s abdomen. It had not occurred to him to handle the intestines, smell them, etc. He stated that, after the attempt on the girl in the day-time, and in the night, after the murder of the boy, he had convulsions. At the time of his crime he was indeed conscious, but he had not thought at all of what he did. He suffered much with headache; could not endure heat, thirst, or alcohol; there were times when he was perfectly confused. The test of his intelligence showed a high grade of weak-mindedness. The opinion (Dr. Kautzner, of Graz) showed the imbecility and neurosis of the accused, and made it probable that his crime, for which he had only a general recollection, had been committed in an exceptional (præ-epileptic) mental state, conditioned by the neurosis. Under all circumstances, E. was considered dangerous, and probably would require commitment to an asylum for life.