Kenstrip v. Cranor
| Citation | 235 P.2d 467,39 Wn.2d 403 |
| Decision Date | 13 September 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 31834,31834 |
| Parties | KENSTRIP, v. CRANOR. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Lawrence Kenstrip, pro se.
Smith Troy, Atty. Gen., Jennings P. Felix, Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert A. Comfort, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
This matter is before this court on an order or show cause why the petitioner's prayer for a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted.
It appears, by the return on the show cause order, that petitioner entered a plea of guilty to a charge of first degree assault; that the court was aware of his previous commitment to the insane asylum, from which he had escaped; that the court examined him and determined, in its own mind, that he was sane; that he waived counsel; and that the court accepted his plea of guilty and sentenced him thereon.
This is a case of first instance, and the rule of this opinion is limited to the rights of a person charged with a crime committed after being adjudicated insane by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Petitioner is now asserting his insanity, and seeks to be transferred from the penitentiary to the Western state hospital at Steilacoom. So long as petitioner remains in custody, it might be thought that the particular place of confinement is not too important an issue. We cannot assume, however, that petitioner will always assert his insanity and be content to remain in custody.
The procedure and requirements for obtaining a release from the Western state hospital are distinct from those of the penitentiary and/or the insane ward thereof. It is with this in mind that we approach the question here presented.
The law does not inflict punishment as such upon the insane. They are presumed to be incapable of appreciating its significance. It only protects society against the menace of the criminally insane. Indeed, incarceration may continue after sanity is restored, where a relapse into criminal insanity is likely. See State v. Tugas, Wash., 234 P.2d 1082.
The doing of criminal acts makes an insane person criminally insane. The safety of society requires that the law distinguish the insane from the criminally insane in its disposition of them.
Accordingly, petitioner's prayer to be removed to Western state hospital is denied.
We next consider his commitment to the penitentiary as a criminal.
We said in Re Burnett's Guardianship, 30 Wash.2d 160, 191 P.2d 283, 284: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lynch v. Overholser, 159
...could with reason act with less caution. See Overholser v. Leach, 103 U.S.App.D.C. 289, 291, 257 F.2d 667, 669, and Kenstrip v. Cranor, 39 Wash.2d 403, 405, 235 P.2d 467, 468. In criminal cases the person could be held in custody in any event and humanitarian principles require his hospital......
-
State v. Wilcox
...acts and not necessarily because he has committed them. State v. Alto, supra at 406. This court noted in In re Kenstrip v. Cranor, 39 Wash.2d 403, 405, 235 P.2d 467, 468 (1951), (t)he doing of criminal acts makes an insane person criminally insane. The safety of society requires that the la......
-
Alter v. Morris, s. 43244--43248
...must be considered to have lost its legitimacy as authority upon the constitutional question presented here. In re Kenstrip v. Cranor, 39 Wash.2d 403, 235 P.2d 467 (1951), was a case relied upon in State v. Blubaugh, Supra, for the proposition that the safety of society requires that the la......
-
Hansen v. Haugh
...N.Y.S.2d 38, 192 N.E.2d 11) (1963); People (ex rel. Sapp) v. McNeill (207 Misc. 686), 138 N.Y.S.2d 725 (1955); Kenstrip v. Cranor (39 Wash.2d 403), 235 P.2d 467 (Wash.1951). '15. A person civilly committed to the Security Hospital can always raise the question of his mental illness by habea......