On A Late Aquittal

Ye people of England! Exult and be glad
For ye're now at the will of the merciless mad.
Why ye say but three authorities reign-
Crown, Commons, and Lords! - You omit the insane!
They're a privelidged class, whom no statute controls,
And their murderous charter exists in their souls.
Do they wish to spill blood - they only have to play
A few pranks - get asylum'd a month and a day-
The heigh! To escape from the mad doctor's keys,
And to pistol and stab whomever they please.
Now the dog has a human-like wit in creation,
He resembles most nearly our own generation.
Then if madmen for murder escape with impunity,
Why deny a poor dog the same immunity!
So, if a dog or a man bite you, beware being nettled;
For crime is no crime - when the mind is unsettled.

T. Campbell - Printed in The Times on March 8 1843

This was a poetic response to a precedence of not guity by reason of insanity. The Daniel McNaughton Assassination case is intriguing and I suggest everyone read up on it.

It makes me wonder if this would have been the verdict if McNaughton had killed his intended target, Sir Robert Peel, then prime minister of the United Kingdom, instead of his personal secretary, Edward Drummond.

The other thing that awes me is that the poem above was a standard poetic verse in response to headlines during the 1800's. It's astounding how far we have fallen in the execution of our language over the years.

OK, no one bit.

My indirect question was that regarding insanity as a plea for innocence.

Does a crime have any less weight if commited by someone who does not understand what they did, or should the law apply to everyone?

Why should a delusional person not deserve the same punishment as a sane one?

what i don't get is when people "go insane" for approximately 20 minutes, commit a crime, and then go back to normal with mysteriously no trace of the former insanity. and then use it as an excuse.

i think if you're actually determined-by-a-doctor-prior -to-the-crime mentally ill, that's something different.

I think crime is about intent. I mean, if a blind person broke a window in a shop, would they be liable to pay for it, and if they refused should they be charged?

No one just flips out and kills someone...they get angry first, they let their minds go blank...they want to to rage. Now if someone has a genuine mental disorder that say, alters what they see around them [ like the book "The Man who mistook his wife for a hat" then how does one accuse in such a case? I might kill a spider if it happened to crawl on my bed whilst I was sleeping, if I then was told that spider was my flatmates dog...and I was a murderer...I am not sure where the right would be.

It is tricky....

In the McNaughton case (shown above) The poor fellow had severe paranoia and believed the Tories were out to get him. The only way for them to stop was for him to take out the head of the tories, Robert Peel. So he bought two pistols (single shot, it was 1843), one for a back up and went to London and then killed the wrong man.

Although it may well be a case of insanity, it also certainly sounds like premeditated murder to me.