Skip to main content

Insanity and the Criminal Trial as Spectacle

James Holmes, cropped.jpg

The website Concurring Opinions hosted a symposium on a book by Susanna Blumenthal, Law and the Modern Mind.

I reviewed Blumenthal's book for The Federal Lawyer, but surprisingly was not asked to contribute to the symposium. At any rate, I find some of the material gathered for this purpose intriguing.

In her reply to one of her critics, Blumenthal includes this thought:

I have long been fascinated with the theatricality of insanity trials and the extent to which they doubled as entertainment forms in nineteenth-century America, bearing a certain resemblance the commercial amusements of P.T. Barnum, who created controversies about his own exhibits, advertising that experts disagreed about their authenticity and democratically inviting “the sagacious public” to decide for themselves. 

This passage reminds me that James Holmes, the fellow who in 2012 dressed up as The Joker and shot up a movie theatre in Colorado, killing 12 people.

Holmes' trial in 2014 was the sort of spectacle that would have made Barnum proud. Three jurors were thrown out mid-trial because they couldn't refrain from discussion with one another of the news coverage the trial was getting.

Two other jurors were dismissed for other reasons: one of them because the judge learned that she personally knew one individual injured in Holmes' shooting. (Shouldn't voir dire have disclosed that...?)

The defense showed video of Holmes' behavior in his jail cell, which included scenes of him slamming his head into the cell wall.

Blumenthal continues....

As Martha notes, the trial is cast in my book as a “performance space,” though it is accompanied by the qualifier peculiar. This was meant to signify the strangeness of the legal actors’ (often quite self-consciously) dramatic moves, not least because the use of such rhetorical devices and conventions was in tension with their purported truth-value as reconstructions of past events bearing on the question of responsibility before the court. 

So Holmes' lawyers might have said, before showing that video, channelling Barnum as quoted by Blumenthal, "Decide for yourselves, sagacious jury, whether this is insane."


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Great Chain of Being

One of the points that Lovejoy makes in the book of that title I mentioned last week is the importance, in the Neo-Platonist conceptions and in the later development of the "chain of being" metaphor, of what he calls the principle of plenitude. This is the underlying notion that everything that can exist must exist, that creation would not be possible at all were it to leave gaps.

The value of this idea for a certain type of theodicy is clear enough.

This caused theological difficulties when these ideas were absorbed into Christianity.  I'll quote a bit of what Lovejoy has to say about those difficulties:

"For that conception, when taken over into Christianity, had to be accommodated to very different principles, drawn from other sources, which forbade its literal interpretation; to carry it through to what seemed to be its necessary implications was to be sure of falling into one theological pitfall or another."

The big pitfalls were: determinism on the on…

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.



We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majestic wate…