Quote Originally Posted by jockeys View Post
none, apart from the civil consequence that his insurance would have to pay out to the other driver's family. what you are describing is an accident, not a crime.

Well then, we at least agree on this point. And the reason I posed the example was to illustrate the concept that we don't generally hold people accountable for their actions without the element of intent. In my example, there was no intent by the driver who was felled by a stroke, and at least we can agree his lack of intent removes any consideration for imposing criminal sanctions.
Now bear with me here: the whole idea of "criminal insanity" is no different. At the risk of beating a dead horse, the very definition of what it means to be criminally insane incorporates the idea the actor lacked all intention because his mental disease has inactivated his ability to understand the difference between right and wrong, and to appreciate the consequences of his conduct. It's really that simple. And that complex. Because as I've said before, it's very, very difficult to prove criminal insanity. But if it's proven, and if the actor didn't intend to do what he did because of his mental incapacity to do so, then by what principle would you impose criminal sanctions on that insane person? Keep him away from others? Yes. Punish him for doing something he was incapable of understanding he did? Nope.