Discussion Main / InsanityDefense

Is this trope just for legal responsibility, or does it also apply for moral responsibility? If not, is there a trope for insane people not being held morally accountable for their actions?

Moving this here, because, while it's a very interesting comment on "A Time to Kill"'s entry, it doesn't fit into why the example fits the trope.

• A jury may very well be inclined to vote against conviction in a case where an otherwise law-abiding citizen shot the men who brutally raped and tried to murder his daughter. But the laws in the American justice system that protect killers who were temporarily incompetent are not intended to apply in scenarios like the one involving Carl Lee. (Certainly, if Lee had been at a shooting range with a gun in his hand when he learned that the man standing next to him had raped his daughter and tried to kill her, he would be an ideal candidate for such a defense, because of the lack of premeditation combined with the shock he would have experienced.) But the circumstances involved Lee obtaining a gun, bringing it to court, and waiting until he was in close proximity to his daughter's rapists, and then shooting them. With that level of premeditation, a man like Carl, who did not suffer from any mental disorders, is supposed to be excluded from the protection of those laws. Perhaps the protection of those laws should be expanded, but until that day comes, a jury that voted against conviction would be disregarding the law, and substituting their own sense of right-and-wrong... something perfectly legal in the US as Jury Nullification is a constitutional right for a jury to find a defendant not guilty, even if the evidence shows him/her to be guilty of the crime, if the jury feels the defendant doesn't deserve punishment. Judges tend to prevent defense attorneys from arguing this point (as is done in the film), however.