Is James Holmes, the perpetrator of the Aurora (Denver) massacre, insane? He has certainly been working hard at his arraignment to create that impression, with much eye-rolling and empty stares. Is the man responsible for the Oslo killings of twelve months ago (Anders Breivic), insane? He has been insisting that he is not. Moreover, the families of his victims are also clear that he is not insane because they do not wish him to avoid punishment. Both men committed mass murder but is there a plausible explanation for their behaviour, in either case, that might make it something other than madness?
The legal test for insanity in the Anglo-Saxon tradition is much as it was when first promulgated in 1843, in relation to the case of Daniel McNaughton, the so-called, ‘McNaughton Rules’. To be acquitted by reason of insanity, a defendant needs to clearly prove that, at the time of committing the act, he was labouring under such ‘defect of reason’ as not to appreciate its ‘nature and quality’. He did not know what he was doing, or if he did know, he did not know it was wrong.
