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 to 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

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 majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak