Evidence there might be, but the evidence pointing to the
narrator's insanity is more reliable. Still, that's not the
question you asked, so let's see what we can make of
it.
First, while we can't put
much stock in the character's own assertions of sanity, his rational does make some
sense. "Madmen know nothing," he says, going on to describe in detail the preparations
he made for doing away with the old codger. He has a point. His ability to
calculate and plan could be seen as evidence that he is not
insane.
Secondly, he
is able to understand right and wrong. This is very important, as it is often
the crux of an insanity defense. He knows that what he is doing is wrong because he
takes care to dismember and hide the body. Were he truly insane, the concept of right
and wrong would elude him and he wouldn't go through such efforts to avoid
detection.
Thirdly,
guilt. The level of guilt he feels is enough to
cause him to confess at the end of the story, even though he has every chance of getting
away with the crime. Guilt shows a certain level of conscience, and this is not a
hallmark of the insane.
I suppose it depends a lot on the
definition of insanity. Most of us would call him crazy, but legally
it could be argued that he's not. A crazy person would act on impulse, not
attempt to conceal the crime, and not feel guilty about it. The narrator here defies
all these conventions.
No comments:
Post a Comment