The defense’s argument that the narrator is legally insane is flawed; it disregards the evidence and facts that prove that the narrator is not insane by legal definition. First of all, the narrator knew what he did was wrong. In his confession, the narrator states that, “You should have seen how careful I was to put the body where no one could find it. First I cut off the head, then the arms and the legs. I was careful not to let a single drop of blood fall on the floor. I pulled up three of the boards that formed the floor, and put the pieces of the body there. Then I put the boards down again, carefully, so carefully that no human eye could see that they had been moved” (66). Why would the narrator hide the body of the old man so …show more content…
In his confession, the narrator explains that, “Every night about twelve o’clock I slowly opened his door. And when the door was opened wide enough I put my hand in, and then my head. In my hand I held a light covered with a cloth so that no light showed. And I stood there quietly. Then, carefully, I lifted the cloth, just a little, so that a single, thin, small light fell across that eye. For seven nights I did this, seven long nights, every night at midnight. Always the eye was closed, so it was impossible for me to do the work. For it was not the old man I felt I had to kill; it was the eye, his Evil Eye” (65). The motive for killing the old man may be questionable, but the fact that the narrator refrained from killing the old man in his sleep during those seven nights shows how capable he was at controlling his behavior. The narrator could have easily killed the old man during those seven nights because he was sleeping. However, he didn’t do this. Instead, the narrator didn’t try to kill the old man because one of the old man’s eye, which was the narrator’s motive for killing the old man, wasn’t open. The narrator knew his motive for killing the old man, so he didn’t try to prematurely kill the old man. He waited until the old man opened the eye that he despised, which happened on the eighth night that he sneaked into the old man’s room. The narrator would have tried to kill the old man on the first night that he sneaked into the old man’s room, if he didn’t have control over his behavior. The narrator’s self-control proves that he actually has control over his
. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence a mental health expert in a criminal trial can not offer an opinion on the ultimate legal issue of whether the defendant did or did not have a mental state or condition that constitutes an element of the crime charged or of a defense. An opinion is not objectionable just because it embraces an ultimate issue. (704(a)). However, in a criminal case, an expert witness must not state an opinion about whether the defendant did or did not have a mental state or condition that constitutes an element of the crime charged or of a defense.(704(b)).
I have a suspicion that the death was planned, maybe this man had something against the old man, but this suspicion cannot be proven. It is revealed in later text that late, every single night, for some of the last days of this old man’s life, this other man, the killer, crept into his room and just watched him. Watched him sleeping, watched his eye. Apparently this old man had what was described as an “evil eye.” The killer, or the other man, appeared to have some kind of infatuation with the old man’s eye, maybe he was scared, maybe he was feeling threatened, we do not know.
In the trial of Mr. Smith, there is no question of whether or not he committed the gruesome murder of Mr. Johnson; the question is in the sanity of Mr. Smith at the time the murder was committed. You may be thinking, “Why on Earth would you think Mr. Smith was sane? He killed a man because his eye was creepy!” While Mr. Smith did kill someone for what seems like an absurd reason, this does not make him insane. The legal definition of insanity is “a mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, cannot manage his/her own affairs, or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior....
Houston, Texas, was home to Andrea Yates; a wife and a mother to Randy Yates and their five children. One morning in the year 2001, she dialed, 911 breathing heavily into the phone “I need a police officer,” (O’Malley). The news over Andrea Yates drowning her children spread like wildfire across the nation, horrifying Americans. Following her confession, she pleaded innocent with the “Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity” (NGRI) plea, yet the jury rejected her appeal and found her guilty of five accounts of first-degree murder. However, in the retrial of 2006, Yates’ abiding murder convictions were overturned, and Andrea Yates was found NGRI.
So the eye caused the young man to kill the old man. It makes you wonder why take the life of a man that
Tears ran down 21-year-old Amanda Wright’s face as she listened to the verdict from the jury, for the murder of her mother, Teresa Steller. She could not believe that they were letting a guilty man walk free, because he was diagnosed with being insane at the time of the crime. Teresa was brutally murdered by her husband William Steller, Amanda’s step-father. William dragged Teresa’s body, by her feet, down seventeen wooden steps causing her head to become severely bruised. He then continued to drag her to the kitchen where he stabbed her forcefully thirty-six times.
But, according to the evidence this man is legally insane. The definition of legally insane is mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, cannot conduct her/his affairs due to psychosis, or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior. Insanity is distinguished from low intelligence or mental deficiency due to age
“Honesty is the best policy, but insanity is a better defense.” according to Steve Landsberg. The insanity plea, although helpful in some cases, can be abused by a multitude of convicted criminals looking for an effortless trial. The first example of the insanity defense ever being used during a court case would be in the 1843. When Daniel M’Naughten tried to assassinate the prime minister of Britain, he was put on trial and was later acquitted due to being found not guilty by reason of insanity.
Yes, taking these precautions was sane of him, but stalking, murdering, and hallucinating are all traits that lead towards being insane. In the end, the narrator did prove to be insane, with his reasonless murder, and absurd hallucinations. But all in all, even if the evidence does lead to the narrator being insane, as Poe once said, “The scariest monsters are the ones that lurk within our
Yet, mere moments after he views the eye on the eighth night, he grows furious simply by viewing it, and attacks. Compounding this argument, the narrator is unable to tell right from wrong. The beating of the heart in the final scene of the story could be seen as a manifestation of the narrator’s guilt over his killing. Though it is more likely he fears being caught for his act of violence. Still, the fact he dreads retribution from the police means he might understand that what he did was wrong, but actions being punishable does not decide if they are right or wrong in the mind of any person.
The man says, “You fancy me mad. Madmen know nothing.” Tying in with the arrogant tones as well, the man has a very dark mind and the readers get a glimpse of his thought train through first person. He explains he needs to “take the life of the old man and thus rid myself of the eye forever.” No sane person would kill over a color of an eye, but as he describes the old man’s eye, the audience begins to understand why he takes the life of the old man.
One sign of the narrator being insane is that he has impulsive behavior. For example, the narrator says, “First of all, I dismembered the corpse, I cut off the head, and the arms, and the legs, or … works as well” (12). This means that he cut off the body without thinking about it beforehand. Furthermore, the narrator also says that he did not just leave the body there, but hid it too. All of this matters because it was a very sudden action
This quote helps explain the narrator’s intense hatred for the old man’s eye and how he wanted it gone. And lastly, “There was no pulsation. He was stone dead. His eye would trouble me no more.” (205) Helps illustrate both characters because the old man is now dead and the narrator was crazy enough to kill to get away from the eye.
The narrator 's sole reason for such murder is purely in his disturbed mind, as he develops an obsession with the old man 's eye and the plot unfolds from here where his insanity augments with the events of the story. Due to Poe’s illustrative language, various evidence can be presented to confirm the state of mind of the narrator, including, his obsession with the old man’s eye, his precision in committing the impeccable crime and finally the sound of the man’s beating heart solely inside his head. Perhaps it all started with the narrator’s obsession with the man’s “vulture eye” since he believes the eye of being evil, proving the insanity he is gravely trying to deny “I think it was
As a result, the narrator is insane and should not be prosecuted. To start off , the eye drove the narrator to insanity, which led him to take the life of the old man, The narrator does not know right from wrong. In the story, the narrator said that “For it was not the old man who vexed me, but his evil eye”(Poe). This quote from the passage proves that he is insane because he is deciding to kill someone over his “vulture eye”. A sane person would realize that killing someone over a eye is a silly, wrong thing