Insanity is a legal, not a medical definition.
Therefore, mental illness and insanity are not synonymous: only some mental
illness constitutes insanity.
J. C. Pritchard, an English physician (1835) "Moral insanity" "the moral or active principles of the mind are strongly perverted or depraved". [Pritchard used the word 'moral' to denote 'affective']. Strongly influenced by Pinel and Esquirol, Prichard distinguishedbetween two types of insanity: one affecting the intellect and the other affectingemotions and will. The latter he called moral insanity. . . . . But while Prichard's term originally designated emotional-volitionaldisorders in general, in France and the German states moral insanitytook on a more specific meaning, referring to violent, immoral, and criminalbehavior that was attributed to an isolated defect of the "moral sense" (Wetzell, 2000, p. 20).
Lawrence P. R. (2010). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. [The author applies the four drive theory of human behavior (to acquire, to defend, to comprehend, to bond) to the leadership realm, and explains the history of leadership in political, economic, and symbolic institutions as a result of one of three types of leadership: good leadership, misguided leadership; and evil leadership. This innovative book outlines a framework of human behavior that can be used to cultivate stellar leadership/leaders which balances the four drives while avoiding negative leadership and leaders who are missing the drive to bond.] I believe that the Renewed Darwinian theories presented in this book are stronger theories of human behavior and of leadership than any of the current alternatives. They are theories that are universal, testable, and actionable. Now it is up to you, the reader, to decide whether or not this outrageously bold claim is justified. . . . I believe that the Renewed Darwinian Theory enables us to reclassify these "inexplicable" people [psychopaths] as human beings genetically lacking the innate, independent drive to bond—rare but entirely understandable products of the history of the human gene pool. . . . . This book strongly reinforces the existence of psychopaths in top power positions, documents the case that Mao was an especially deadly head-of-state person-w/o-conscience, and comes to the same conclusions I have regarding Rome, Hitler, and Enron. But its title is seriously confusing since it proposes, in a rather figurative way only, that there are "evil" genes behind psychopathy. I, of course, hypothesize that the absence of the genes for bonding is the explanation of psychopathy. I worry that it will be impossible to find the genes causing psychopathy if the search is for "evil" genes.
Gur is the star witness for the defense team, and her testimony is crucial to the argument that Holmes should be found not guilty by reason of insanity and committed indefinitely to the state hospital.