You make a good case, and I agree, said the judge, you remind me of my old professor from Law School. However, the plaintiff’s accusations are two fold, not merely public unrest, personal disturbance but also that this man is insane to believe his own words. How could a man proclaim such things about his God. Is he not also a threat simultaneously to those he deems unrighteous?
No, said the lawyer, the right question is not being asked. What is insanity? What is a threat? The two may never hold hands nor shake hands if so be it. How could a man who is deemed insane be a threat to all or to any? He cannot, for if he be deemed insane, he is incapable of reason, and if so, then like a bunny or dog hopping and running in random patterns hitting its head upon stones, or rather as a bird incapable of flight, making way towards structure and peaks unreachable to die and be killed by contact or danger.
What if it’s a form of insanity, a lesser one? Said the judge in grimaced.
And if we were to deliberate upon a matter of such import, not a philosophical conundrum fit for the classrooms in law, we could reach a theoretical conclusion, however, in being not only a contentious point, but a point used as an axel to diverge from the law and from justice, creates a leeway into crime not from me or him, but from thee your honor. Simply deliberating upon a lesser degree of insanity, which does not exist, but rather only in theory, we breech the law and attack it with subjectivities and deceptive tactics. And if not doing so, then we shall be enabling such trickery behind the law and outcast from the face of justice in days and years if not decades to come.