I'm reminded of the Batman line: "Some people just want to watch the world burn". Lots of people are convicted of murder, whose only motive was that they got sexual satisfaction from killing the victim.
Henkster, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the impression that for a finding of LEGAL insanity, the accused must be shown to be so insane that he's not aware of what he's doing. That while the rest of us know he strangled an eight year old girl, he sincerely believed he was destroying a demon or alien monster.
The legal concept of “insanity” came from British Common Law in the 1800’s, in “M’Naughton’s Case.” There are two elements to every crime that must be met: the criminal act (actus reaus) and the intent to commit the act (mens rea). Without an intent to commit the act, you cannot convict of a crime. Thus, in the law, there is no “crime” of “negligent homicide.” Having your head up your ass and causing an accident that kills someone is not criminally culpable, although that is becoming more blurred. Today, it seems there are prosecutors who believe everything bad that happens to anyone is a criminal act on somebody’s part, and an increasing number of American jurors are buying it. This is bad.
M’Naughton’s case involved a man with serious mental issues, and was decided before Freud started labeling mental illnesses. There were two wings to the original insanity defense in M’Naughton: inability to appreciate wrongfulness of conduct and “irresistable impulse.” Nobody recognizes “irresistable impulse” as a defense, only whether a person is so gravely disabled by mental disease or defect that they are incapable of appreciating the wrongfulness of their conduct.
In your case, it could be that they are unaware of what they are doing, or it could be that they are completely aware of what they are doing, but are so screwed up they don’t see it as wrong.
Case in point; the one murder case I prosecuted where the defendant was found not responsible by reason of insanity. Fifty-two year old Alice Gray shot her husband in the kitchen of their home. She had a documented history going back over 20 years of chronic, and progressively worsening, paranoid schizophrenia. She sincerely believed she was descended from Egyptian pharaohs, and as royalty, she had a right to kill her husband, who was a mere commoner.
The court-appointed shrinks said she was crazy. The jury agreed. I didn’t like it but under facts and the law, it was a proper verdict.