The Delusion Defense

“This case will be entirely about Trump’s state of mind.”

Sarah Isgur in Politico

Psychologically speaking, this makes sense. If President Trump sincerely believed that he had won the election, the delusion defense could be used. But is the legal system smart enough to accept such a defense? This is the question.

According to the letter of the law, he is likely to be found guilty. How can the defense overcome such an obstacle?

The delusion defense was unknown two thousand years ago. Jesus boldly proclaimed in the Temple that God had revealed to him that the Temple sacrifices had become obsolete, and that the Passover meal could be performed anywhere in the world, because it was no longer sacrificial. He was seen as a dangerous lunatic and was handed over to the Roman authorities for crucifixion.

Most likely, Trump is going to be crucified. He did materially do what he is accused of. The delusion defense is likely to be too smart for the law. I don’t even think that Trump’s lawyers recognize the validity of that defense.

The fact that Trump was delusional might affect his eligibility to the presidential job. But this is the downside of the delusion defense.

If I were to defend Trump, I would start with the case of prophets and mystics. They were delusional. Delusions are beyond our control. Therefore, being delusional is not a crime.

*

Joseph Codsi