*This article critiques Carrying On Like a Madman by Melissa J. Ganz, linked at the bottom of this page, which discusses the novella The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, published in 1886.  

--

Are insane criminals responsible for murder?

To preface my thoughts on this matter, I must answer if a person is truly liable for their wrongdoings if they lack basic mental acuity. Ganz believes that people are liable, to an extent- mental deficiency, or the inability to determine right from wrong, complicates judicial proceedings against the criminal, but Ganz only goes that far. To answer where I stand, though, I think it is fair to propose two hypothetical extremes: one, the case of the school shooter, and two, the case of a shoplifting kleptomaniac. 

I often think about what should happen to a deranged shooter, taking the lives of innocents. I often think about the best way to perform cognitive tests without the criminal intentionally skewing the results (which may happen today, but those are other arguments- can a clinic find inconsistency in evaluation, test accuracy, etc.). Admittedly, I'm not an expert in this topic, but I have faith that when true evil really does occur, the criminal faces punishment. 

Furthermore, I believe that a person who takes the innocent lives of others has no right to his or her own. If a jury finds them guilty, they deserve the death penalty (even that has its debates), if tests overwhelmingly show true madness, as seen in “Hyde,” then life in prison- confinement to a special hospital- should be the verdict, but these cases are rare. Finally, with the kleptomaniac- in this case and in certain school shooter cases, too- I believe it is the moral responsibility, social duty, and human obligation to seek help, find medication, or talk to someone to prevent calamity. Yes, in many cases people can’t help themselves, but that’s not an excuse for wrongdoing. I think most can agree with me here. 

Having this in mind, the author argues that Stevenson, in the novella, with evidence from the time (1843- one of the first criminal cases to provide amnesty for someone who was declared mentally deranged), broadens the definition of insanity, which is a dangerous idea (as she argues). She explains that if we broaden this idea, many will go unpunished for their evil acts, and I agree. She does this by, one, extending that “Stevenson presents Jekyll’s case as one for jurists rather than alienists” (Stevenson 367). Two, arguing that there’s a difference in moral and cognitive insanity, the latter Stevenson uses to seemingly “pardon” Jekyll’s behavior, and three, Jekyll seemed to “[know] what he [was] doing” (Stevenson 388). I agree with her first and second points, but not her third, and not her holistic interpretation: that this novella was used to broaden the idea of mental health amnesty, as I contend that, morally, Jekyll was just as insane as Hyde was. 

But, getting to her first two points, I agree with her: these are well-founded arguments, as she looks at the surrounding time, especially Stevenson’s life, when cognitive tests were first used in British trial courts. Given Stevenson’s history, he was a prominent supporter of mental health amnesty. Ganz’s argument here is that Stevenson writes this as a jurist more than an “alienist,” or a psychologist, and I would agree. The reason she makes this claim is because on its face, readers may overlook the purpose of this novella, and it’s clear that Stevenson writes in support of his personal jurisprudent perspective. 

Secondly, Ganz argues that as readers interpret the novella, they may also overlook Stevenson’s animus for dividing moral and cognitive insanity. I agree here: it’s clear that Stevenson, in the portrayal of the duality between morality and insanity, a beacon of ethics versus Hyde’s cognitive oblivion, paints the picture of Jekyll- knowing that what Hyde does is immoral, thus deserving punishment- having a righteous cognizance. I agree that this was Stevenson’s purpose- that Jekyll deserves forgiveness because he understands that Hyde is a murderous brute, but Ganz only explains that this was Stevenson's purpose, not the proper interpretation of the novella. In many cases, the author has his interpretation while the readers should have a different one. And I believe this is the case. 

On page 388 (referenced above), Ganz argues this fact, and I disagree. Jekyll was just as oblivious as Hyde was. Jekyll was incredibly naive. We forget that Hyde and Jekyll are the same person, just in different iterations, and as the two spheres begin to overlap, so do thoughts, impulses, and morals. Jekyll did not know what he was doing. Jekyll lost control. This does not broaden mental health amnesty because Jekyll was just as insane as Hyde- to be so naive as to think you can coexist with a material form of evil is an example of insanity. 

Jekyll would have been committed to an insane asylum just like Hyde was, and I think this should be the sole interpretation of the novella, not a man being pardoned for crimes he could have controlled. In conclusion, Ganz argues that Stevenson wrote The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde to allegorize his jurisprudence, thus the broad interpretation of the novella (to broaden insanity), but I argue that the reader takes (or should take) a different path, contrary to the author’s supposed didactic.