Just a couple of comments. First, you rightly point out the crux of the insanity defense (ability to make a choice; that it, to intend to commit the alleged crime), in both Great Britain and the U.S. (some of our rules stem from your early cases, particularly M'Naughton -- spelled several ways in the literature, and by M/Naughton himself). The point is that "murder" is a crime, but "killing" is not necessarily a crime. In order to commit a crime such as murder (speaking generally; there are exceptions), the person must intend to commit that crime. Some mental "diseases or defects," in some situations, can make the person unable to intend the alleged crime.

Second, I disagree that the death penalty is so closely related to the U.S. Bible Belt, or to religion in general. The many states in the U.S. that allow the death penalty are not all in the so-called "Bible Belt," and there are lots of examples of death penalty countries in which religion does not prominently influence the national policy (China comes to mind).

ADMIN. NOTE: If you would like to respond to this post, please consider going to the same post in the "Criminal Responsibility . . ." thread and responding there unless your comments are related to the initial "suicide" topic. Thanks, Bill Reid