Which exactly describes Daniel M'Naughten, whose precedent setting case resulted in what we now call NGRI (
not guilty by reason of insanity), wherein Tindal instructed the jury:
"If upon balancing the evidence in your minds you should think the prisoner a person capable of distinguishing right from wrong with respect to the act of which he stands charged, he is then a responsibl agent."
McNaghten, acquitted on the grounds of insanity, was on trial for the attempted murder of then Prime Minister, Sir Robert Peel. He mistakenly shot and killed Drummond, Peel's secretary, instead. (
link )
At the time of his arrest, he told police that he came to London to murder the Prime Minister because the tories in my city follow and persecute me wherever I go, and have destroyed my peace of mind. They do everything in their power to harass and persecute me; in fact they wish to murder me.
Imo, Dorner knew exactly what he was doing. He was/is on a revenge trip and *
chose* to murder innocent people to exact his revenge. To me, that is a far cry from feeling/perceiving one has no other options.
Exclusive of NGRI, there are, of course situations where an individual may truly have no choice to do something that may go against their moral fibre. For example, the plane crash victims who were starving, and "
resorted to" eat the flesh of passengers who were killed in the crash. (
link ) That proposition would be abhorrent to most. And yet, that sort of thing has certainly occurred and importantly, been forgiven by society at large. Bc we understand that they truly had no choice.
Dorner's situation, imnsho, is not one of those situations.
