Modern Insanity In Hamlet

Words: 1440
Pages: 6

If any man has had a truly impactful effect on the course of history, then M'naghten is the founding father for the modern insanity plea as a result of his frantic decision making when he allegedly assassinated the secretary of the prime minister of England in 1843. To which, the case was under heavy scrutiny from the public, but the house of Lords ruled the convicted as insane and could not tell right from wrong. Hence, in the play “Hamlet,” the protagonist Hamlet, disregards the image M’naghten, and ascertains no insanity due to his ability to differentiate between moral standards which were not negatively affected by any psychosis, for his affairs could be conducted as usual. In any assertion, claiming an individual as not insane, insanity is a mental illness “of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality” (Legal Insanity) and cannot “conduct her/his affairs due to psychosis” (Legal Insanity), or is “subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior” (Legal Insanity). To which, the M’naghten rule applies in any modern insanity case because the defendant, Hamlet, surmises to have sanity during all acts and must be “clearly proved” …show more content…
Hamlet had all the compassion in the world for his mother despite her insane accusations, but to revenge his father’s and mother’s death, caused by Claudius from the same poison, Hamlet annexes no other choice but to defend his personal property and ground (Self Defense Overview). To which, murder is not done out of spite, but “for this same lord” (3.4.191), Hamlet views his actions as “i do repent” (3.4.193) them. Which, in both acts of “murder,” Hamlet may have had a premedication beforehand, but in the act, premeditation presents to validity according to a justifiably proportional