Posted by
mgraves on Monday, April 23, 2007 9:14:58 PM
I'm sure it's safe to assume that most of those who call Seung-Hui Cho insane do not intend to excuse his behavior, but legally, that is what insanity is. Insanity is not a psychological determination; it is a legal determination. It means, usually, either that a person suffered from an "irresistable impulse" or was unable to distinguish right from wrong. The latter definition, known as the M'Naughten rule (after a famous case in England), is the more common definition. (Reading through the Virginia Code of Laws to determine what standard Virginia uses I was reminded of why I dropped out of law school. Also, I failed).
There can be little doubt that Seung-Hui was disturbed--this morning I heard on the radio about his space-traveling imaginary girlfriend (I question the source of the information, however; anyone who could let me know if they've heard this as well, I'd appreciate it; that said, there is more than enough evidence--poetry, scaring classmates, etc--that he was disturbed)--but does it necessarily follow that he did not comprehend right and wrong, or was compelled to commit his heinous acts?
Not a chance.
He knew very well what he was doing and was able to stop: he mailed his manifesto during the two hour break in his murderous rampage.
I hate to pick nits, but language is important. Seung-Hui was not insane. He knew what he was doing and did so deliberately and with malice aforethought. To dismiss him as insane is to diminish his culpability.
(Additionally, I'd say Yates was legally insane to the exact same point that I am a three-legged mule.)