[HPforGrownups] HPforGrownups] Harry and the Cruciatus

[Silverthorne]

No: HPFGUIDX 96168

Sherrie here:

In most jurisdictions, the measure of sanity is the M'Naughton Rule.
Basically, if the person knew that society considered the act wrong -
whether or not
the perpetrator himself thought it was wrong - then that person is sane.
Harry DOES know this - therefore, however he justifies himself in his own
mind, he
cannot claim temporary insanity.

Self-defense may be another question - although he wasn't then directly
under
attack...


{Silverthorne}

Except I'm not saying Harry was suffering *permanent* insanity, which is
what I think you're referring to? Essentially, in the above 'Rule', the
defendant gets off because he is clinically and irrevocably insane and has
no clue of why what s/he did was wrong, because mentally, they cannot
comnprehend the difference *between* right and wrong.

What I'm talking about is a claim of *temporary* insanity, which, as far as
I know, is defined as "They knew what they were doing was wrong, but at the
time were so overwhelmed with emotional distress/shock/mental breaks
whatever, that they lost all reason (and perhaps memory of the event)--for a
short time--commited the crime, and then regained their reason afterwards."
Basically, it's a pyschotic break, but not a permanently damaging one.

>From what I understand, that's a completely different kettle of fish from
claiming the defended is permanently 'round the bend.