The crime of rape, associated in nearly every instance with some one of the degrees of alcoholism, and hence treated very appropriately here, presupposes such a powerful excitation of the sexual passion as to temporarily cloud the judgment; since it is highly improbable, as Krafft-Ebing remarks, "that any man, morally intact, would commit so brutal a crime."1 Still less probable is it, and this is what possibly the learned professor meant to say, that any man, mentally intact, would attempt so nearly impossible a crime; for whether the victim be a woman or a child, the accomplishment of the act is opposed by almost insuperable obstacles; in the fierce resistance offered in the former case, and the physiological difficulties encountered in the latter. In point of fact, rape is most frequently the act, either of degenerate male imbeciles, pushed by central influences to acts which they only partially understand, or of those whose mental powers are temporarily or permanently clouded by alcoholic or drug indulgence. And, although the law recognizes, or sets up such differences, physiologically speaking there is little difference between the two.
There are three forms of rape, involving three separate degrees of crime. Rape, following the murder of the victim; rape, followed by murder, to destroy the evidences of the leBser crime; and rape, preceded by murder, as a means to the accomplishment of the sexual crime.' The last, only, is hist-murder. The latter crime, as a sequence or concomitant of rape, is never committed with accomplices, nor with evidences of premeditation, if it is the result of psychopathic conditions. Evidence of planning associated with the crime, ordinarily, would exclude it at once from the domain of pathology.