Well, that’s the everyday definition of insanity. The legal system, as usual, has a different and far more specific definition. I think it has something to do with lacking the ability to differentiate right from wrong, and therefore being incapable of willful intent to commit the crime. Pretty much any sign of prior planning to commit the crime invalidates it as a defense, as well as any attempt to conceal the crime from others. I am not a lawyer, though, so that’s just my opinion.

The only nearly sure thing that will bring Shalit home is for Israel to capture the top dog of Hamas and exchange him for Shalit. The poor guy likely is doomed.

“I say Israel asks for the return of the Temple items stolen by Rome 2,000 years ago”

They can’t. The Vandals took them from Rome in 455 and brought them to Africa with them. What happened then I don’t know. I don’t think they were there when the Byzantines conquered the place in the 530s.

Regarding the insanity defense, the thing that gets me is that they always say the act itself proves insanity. “Only an insane person would shoot five people”. “Only an insane person would drown her kids”. “Only an insane person would knife her husband”. etc.