[HPforGrownups] HPforGrownups] Harry and the Cruciatus

[MadameSSnape at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 96170

In a message dated 4/16/2004 6:36:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
silverthorne.dragon at verizon.net writes:
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.
===========

Sherrie here:

No - the M'Naughton Rule has nothing to do with the accused's personal view 
of right & wrong.  If you can ask the person, "Do you know that Society thinks 
it's wrong for you to kill someone?", and they say, "Yes, but I don't think 
so," they're legally sane.  (Vincent Bugliosi gives an excellent layman's 
definition of M'Naughton in HELTER SKELTER.)

"Temporary insanity" is one of the hardest defenses to prove, actually - 
unless, of course, you're Dan Sickles & setting the whole bloody precedent.  
Otherwise, Sing Sing would'nt have HALF the inmates we do! <g>

Sherrie


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]