WI: Charles Guiteaux is acquitted of President Garfield's assassination on grounds of temporary insanity
This is a pretty good account of the background and trial, particularly dealing with the issue of "insanity", as understood at the time.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/
Obviously, definitions of insanity have to be rather strict, or everyone will simply say that the reason they committed murder was that they were temporarily insane, so, no big deal. Guiteau was a writer and an eccentric who had managed at times to earn a living from time to time. Some accounts say he himself had been a lawyer for a time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
As a result, it would be rather difficult for him to make the case that, at the most basic level, he didn't understand that shooting the President was wrong.
On the other hand, his background was so bizarre, as were many of his views, that it might be equally difficult to argue that he was entirely sane.
I think it might be interesting to compare Guiteau's fate with that of an equally bizarre but far more successful character and contemporary, Daniel Sickles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Sickles, while a U.S. congressman, shot dead the local district attorney of Washington D.C. for having a very public affair with his wife! He was acquitted, on the basis of "crime of passion". He subsequently went on to play an extremely controversial role as a Major General at the Battle of Gettysburg in the U.S. Civil War -- some arguing he won the Battle, some that he almost lost it, by systematically disobeying General Meade's orders! After the War he was appointed U.S. ambassador to Spain, and had a public romantic affair with the Queen!
So, you see, there's "crazy", and then, there's "crazy"!
I think Guiteau was convicted because he was perceived to be a loser who would gain from his act, if acquitted. I think Sickles was acquitted because the murder hurt him politically, and also because he was an individual of potential social value who might have further social utility.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/
Obviously, definitions of insanity have to be rather strict, or everyone will simply say that the reason they committed murder was that they were temporarily insane, so, no big deal. Guiteau was a writer and an eccentric who had managed at times to earn a living from time to time. Some accounts say he himself had been a lawyer for a time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
As a result, it would be rather difficult for him to make the case that, at the most basic level, he didn't understand that shooting the President was wrong.
On the other hand, his background was so bizarre, as were many of his views, that it might be equally difficult to argue that he was entirely sane.
I think it might be interesting to compare Guiteau's fate with that of an equally bizarre but far more successful character and contemporary, Daniel Sickles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Sickles, while a U.S. congressman, shot dead the local district attorney of Washington D.C. for having a very public affair with his wife! He was acquitted, on the basis of "crime of passion". He subsequently went on to play an extremely controversial role as a Major General at the Battle of Gettysburg in the U.S. Civil War -- some arguing he won the Battle, some that he almost lost it, by systematically disobeying General Meade's orders! After the War he was appointed U.S. ambassador to Spain, and had a public romantic affair with the Queen!
So, you see, there's "crazy", and then, there's "crazy"!
I think Guiteau was convicted because he was perceived to be a loser who would gain from his act, if acquitted. I think Sickles was acquitted because the murder hurt him politically, and also because he was an individual of potential social value who might have further social utility.
posted by Jerry Kraus at 12:47 PM
0 comments
