preview

Insanity In Hamlet

Better Essays

If any man has had a truly impactful effect on the course of history, then M'naghten is the founding father for the modern insanity plea because of his frantic decision making when he allegedly assassinated the secretary of the prime minister of England in 1843. To which, the case was under heavy scrutiny from the public, but the house of Lords ruled the convicted as insane and could not tell right from wrong. Hence, in the play “Hamlet,” the protagonist Hamlet, disregards the image M’naghten, and is to be deemed not insane due to his ability to differentiate between moral standards which were not negatively affected by any psychosis, for his affairs could be conducted as usual. In any assertion, claiming an individual as not insane, a brief …show more content…

For in the third act, scene three, when Hamlet has distinguished fantasy from reality by instilling a simple test upon his Uncle, he goes to confront the King. Hamlet is expelled to see the king alone in the church and has a premeditation for “And now I'll do't” so “And so am I revenged” because “A villain kills my father; and for that,” he “do this same villain” the same deed. Yet the irresistibility for the chance to revenge his father’s death has caused Hamlet to contemplate his own actions. Hamlet has a moment where he asks oneself “am I then revenged/ To take him in the purging of his soul,” for if Hamlet is only going to murder his Uncle in a purge of emotions, then there is little justification for it. Also, the fear of religion plays its part in the contemplation; for Hamlet fears “do this same villain” send him “To heaven” when he sins in the presence of God? It may not be a clear cut answer, but the fact that Hamlet can justify moral decision making with an inquisitive mind, as in his soliloquies and tensely packed moments, it shows Hamlet is in full control over himself. Therefore, according to the Irresistible Impulse Test used in modern insanity cases, Hamlet passes as a basis for being able to contain his impulse in killing his uncle with personal …show more content…

Although, both cases have similarities to them. While Hamlet talks to his mother in act 3, scene 4, polonius and gertrude try to set up Hamlet by having polonius hide behind a curtain while the two of them talked. Yet, as the two talk, Hamlet politely insists the queen “sit you down” and “set up you a glass” for he has a need to confess to his mother why he has been acting so insane lately. Although the Queen states “thou wilt not murder me” as an overdramatized accusation towards Hamlet, in the fear he will, she calls “help ho” for polonius. Promptly, Hamlet kills Polonius in an act of self defense with no premeditation to kill him. Hamlet has a defense for killing Polonius because the situation at hand was escalated to a matter of personal safety. Hence he had to stand his ground within the castle doctrine and with a proportional response to the situation is justifiable with the Queen accusing Hamlet of

Get Access