From Daniel M'Naughten to John Hinckley: A Brief History of the Insanity Defense

Tracing the circular evolution of the insanity defense, from the 19th century trial of a would-be assassin in Great Britain to the controversial acquittal in the United States of John Hinckley Jr., the man who shot U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

The proposition that some criminal defendants should not be held responsible for their actions by reason of their mental state has been well established in Anglo-American law for centuries. As early as 1581, a legal treatise distinguished between those who understood the difference between good and evil and those who did not:

If a madman or a natural fool, or a lunatic in the time of his lunacy do [kill a man], this is no felonious act for they cannot be said to have any understanding will.

By the 18th century, the British courts had elaborated on this distinction and developed what became known as the "wild beast" test: If a defendant was so bereft of sanity that he understood the ramifications of his behavior "no more than in an infant, a brute, or a wild beast," he would not be held responsible for his crimes.

: THE "RIGHT/WRONG" M'NAUGHTEN TEST

The guidelines for evaluating the criminal responsibility for defendants claiming to be insane were codified in the British courts in the case of Daniel M'Naughten in 1843. M'Naughten was a Scottish woodcutter who murdered the secretary to the prime minister, Sir Robert Peel, in a botched attempt to assassinate the prime minister himself. M'Naughten apparently believed that the prime minister was the architect of the myriad of personal and financial misfortunes that had befallen him. During his trial, nine witnesses testified to the fact that he was insane, and the jury acquitted him, finding him "not guilty by reason of insanity."

Queen Victoria was not at all pleased with this outcome, and requested that the House of Lords review the verdict with a panel of judges. The judges reversed the jury verdict, and the formulation that emerged from their review -- that a defendant should not be held responsible for his actions if he could not tell that his actions were wrong at the time he committed them -- became the basis of the law governing legal responsibility in cases of insanity in England. The M'Naughten rule was embraced with almost no modification by American courts and legislatures for more than 100 years, until the mid-20th century. In 1998, 25 states plus the District of Columbia still used versions of the M'Naughten rule to test for legal insanity.

: "IRRESISTIBLE IMPULSE"

One of the major criticisms of the M'Naughten rule is that, in its focus on the cognitive ability to know right from wrong, it fails to take into consideration the issue of control. Psychiatrists agree that it is possible to understand that one's behavior is wrong, but still be unable to stop oneself. To address this, some states have modified the M'Naughten test with an "irresistible impulse" provision, which absolves a defendant who can distinguish right and wrong but is nonetheless unable to stop himself from committing an act he knows to be wrong. (This test is also known as the "policeman at the elbow" test: Would the defendant have committed the crime even if there were a policeman standing at his elbow?).

: THE RISE AND FALL OF THE DURHAM "MENTAL DEFECT" RULE

The 1950s saw a growing dissatisfaction with the M'Naughten test. It was criticized in both legal and psychiatric circles as rigid and antiquated. As the profession of psychiatry grew in stature, critics began to call for the introduction of medical evidence of mental illness into the insanity defense equation. In 1954, an appellate court discarded the M'Naughten rule and the "irresistible impulse" test in favor of a broader, medically based determination: In Durham v. United States, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that a defendant could not be found criminally responsible "if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or mental defect." [emphasis added]. The decision was hailed as revolutionary because it marked the replacement of moral considerations with more neutral scientific determinations that were reflective of advances in psychiatric and psychological research. It was the first major break from the "right/wrong" M'Naughten rule in American jurisprudence.

The Durham rule proved vague and difficult to apply, however, and many were concerned that the broad definition would exonerate far more defendants than ever before. There was confusion over whether "mental disease or defect" should be interpreted to mean only psychosis, or any of the myriad of more minor disorders defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Critics worried that defendants would begin to use alcoholism or other disorders whose only symptoms were antisocial behavior as excuses for their crimes. It proved difficult to determine if the question of whether a defendant's actions were the "product" of his disease was a factual question for the jury, or for expert psychiatric witnesses. And the rule was criticized for inadvertently granting psychiatrists and psychologists too much influence in the courtroom.

Twenty-two states explicitly rejected the Durham test, and in 1972 a panel of federal judges overturned the ruling in favor of the Model Penal Code test of the American Law Institute.

: THE A.L.I. STANDARD

In 1962, the American Law Institute (A.L.I.) set out a model insanity defense statute intended, like Durham, to soften the M'Naughten standard and allow for the introduction of medical and psychiatric evidence. The standard in effect consolidates the principles of the M'Naughten "right and wrong" rule and the "irresistible impulse" test. The A.L.I. formulation provides that a defendant will not be held criminally responsible if at the time of the behavior in question "as a result of a mental disease or defect, he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law."

The A.L.I. was a significant softening of the M'Naughten standard. Instead of requiring a defendant to have no understanding whatsoever of the nature of his acts or the difference between right and wrong, the A.L.I. standard requires merely that he lack a "substantial capacity" to understand the right from wrong, and expands the M'Naughten rule to include an "irresistible impulse" component.

The A.L.I. standard excludes those defendants whose mental illness or defect only manifests itself in criminal or antisocial conduct, thus addressing the conundrum of the serial killer whose only symptom of mental illness is the killing of his victims.

As of 1998, the states were roughly split between the two standards: 22 states used some form of the A.L.I. rule, while 26 used a version of M'Naughten, with or without an irresistible impulse component.

: See this state-by-state chart of insanity standards.

In addition to the popularity of the more expansive test for legal insanity among state legislatures, many state courts during the '60s and '70s issued rulings demonstrating a growing concern with protecting the civil rights of the mentally ill. Many courts struck down laws providing for the automatic and indefinite confinement of defendants who had been acquitted by reason of insanity. The courts said that due process and equal-protection concerns required that those found not guilty but confined due to mental illness had the right to periodic reassessment of their mental health status and dangerousness. If the evaluations did not find justification for continued confinement, the defendants would be released. By the early 1980s, all but 10 state legislatures had responded to these decisions and reformed their laws to provide for such review procedures.

: AFTER HINCKLEY

In 1981, John Hinckley Jr. shot then-U.S. President Ronald Reagan, a secret service agent, a Washington police officer, and Reagan's press secretary James Brady. Hinckley claimed that he was trying to impress the actress Jodie Foster, with whom he was infatuated. He later described the incident in a letter to The New York Times as "the greatest love offering in the history of the world. ... At one time Miss Foster was a star and I was the insignificant fan. Now everything is changed. I am Napoleon and she is Josephine. I am Romeo and she is Juliet."

A jury acquitted Hinckley of 13 assault, murder, and weapons counts, finding him not guilty by reason of insanity. There was an immediate public outcry against what many perceived to be a loophole in the justice system that allowed an obviously guilty man to escape punishment. There were widespread calls for the abolishment, or at least the substantial revision, of the insanity-plea laws.

: THE INSANITY DEFENSE REFORM ACT OF 1984

After the Hinckley acquittal, members of Congress responded to the public outrage by introducing 26 separate pieces of legislation designed to abolish or modify the insanity defense. At the time of Hinckley's trial, all but one federal circuit had adopted the A.L.I. "substantial capacity" test, and all the new proposals were aimed at creating a stricter federal standard that would avoid acquittals like Hinckley's in the future.

The debates on this legislation reflected the public's indignation over the Hinckley decision. Sen. Strom Thurmond criticized the insanity defense for "exonerat[ing] a defendant who obviously planned and knew exactly what he was doing." Sen. Dan Quayle claimed that the insanity defense "pampered criminals," allowing them to kill "with impunity."

This hyperbolic testimony was countered by psychiatric and legal professionals who called for the modification, rather than the total abolition, of the insanity defense, and ultimately the resulting legislation -- the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 -- was somewhat of a compromise. The insanity defense was not abolished, but the A.L.I. test was discarded in favor of a stricter version which more closely resembled M'Naughten. In order to qualify, an insanity defendant must show that his mental disease or defect is "severe." The "volitional" prong of the test, which excused a defendant who lacked the capacity to control his behavior, was eliminated. In effect, Congress returned to the 19th century "right/wrong" standard, echoing Queen Victoria's response to the M'Naughten acquittal.

Congress also adopted a number of provisions that toughened procedural barriers to a successful insanity defense. Before Hinckley, the burden of proof in federal cases was on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant was sane. The post-Hinckley reform legislation shifted the burden to the defendant to prove with clear and convincing evidence that he was legally insane at the time of the crime. The scope of expert psychiatric testimony was severely limited, and stricter procedures governing the hospitalization and release of insanity acquittees were adopted.

: STATE RESPONSES TO HINCKLEY

Following Congress' lead, more than 30 states made changes to their insanity-defense statutes in the wake of the Hinckley verdict. Over the 1980s and 1990s, many shifted the burden and standard of proof in ways to make it more difficult to sustain an insanity plea, moving away from the A.L.I. standard back towards the more restrictive M'Naughten test. In addition to raising more procedural hurdles for a successful insanity defense, many states enacted laws providing for more restrictive confinement options for those acquitted by reason of insanity. Three states -- Utah, Montana, and Idaho -- abolished the defense altogether.

: GUILTY BUT MENTALLY ILL

The introduction of the "guilty but mentally ill" (GBMI) verdict in many states is the biggest development in insanity defense law since the post-Hinckley reforms. A sort of hybrid alternative to an acquittal by reason of insanity, a defendant who receives a GBMI verdict is still considered legally guilty of the crime in question, but since he is mentally ill, he is entitled to receive mental health treatment while institutionalized. If his symptoms remit, however, he is required to serve out the remainder of his sentence in a regular correctional facility, unlike a defendant who was acquitted by reason of insanity, who must be released if it is determined he is no longer dangerous to himself or others. In 2000, at least 20 states had instituted GBMI provisions.

“The Tell-Tale Heart” Lexile: 860

Reading Literature 8L.3: Analyze how particular lines of dialogue or incidents in a story or drama propel the action, reveal aspects of a character, or provoke a decision.

Building Knowledge

The Big Question: Can All Conflicts Be Resolved? Explore this question as you read “The Tell-Tale Heart.” Take notes on the narrator’s internal and external conflicts. (Internal: Character v. Self; External: Character v. Character, force of nature, or society)

Sentence starters to use when answering the big question:

1. The tale is told from the viewpoint of a man who is . . .2. The narrator’s act of violence begins with . . . 3. The narrator seems to feel that he is victorious after he . . . 4. His reaction to his own brutal act seems . . .

Close Reading Focus

Key Ideas and Details: Compare and Contrast

To compare and contrast characters’ perspectives, look for similarities and differences between their views of events.

Compare one character’s actions, feelings, and ideas with those of another character. Ask yourself what the comparison shows about each character’s perspective—how he or

she views events. For example, is one and optimist, the other a pessimist? Then, compare one character’s perspective with your own. For example, a character

might be upset by a situation, but you might think he or she is overreacting.

Some characters have distorted, or false perspectives. Use what you learn to decide how much you trust what a character thinks.

Craft and Structure: Character Traits

Character traits are a character’s qualities, attitudes, and values. For example, one character may be lazy and untrustworthy, while another is hardworking and reliable. The number of traits a character displays contributes to how well you “know” him or her.

Round characters are fully developed by the writer. They show many character traits, both good and bad.

Flat characters are one-sided, often showing just one trait.

As you read, draw conclusions about the characters’ traits based on their words and actions.

Vocabulary:

These words appear in the text that follows. Create vocabulary cards for each word. Which of these words is probably a synonym for sneakily?

Cunningly Resolved Stealthily Vex Audacity Derision

The following words will be found within the story: Create Vocabulary Cards for these words as well.

Hearken Dissimulation Sagacity Deathwatches Scantlings Gesticulations DissembleClose Reading Model

The passage below is from Edgar Allan Poe’s short story “The Tell-Tale Heart.” The annotations to the right of the passage show ways in which you can use close reading skills to compare and contrast characters and analyze character traits.

From “The Tell-Tale Heart”

Presently I heard a slight groan, and I knew it was the groan of mortal terror. It was not a groan of pain or of grief—oh, no!—it was the low stifled sound that arises from the bottom of the soul when overcharged with awe. I knew the sound well. Many a night, just at midnight, when all the world slept, it has welled up from my own bosom, deepening, with its dreadful echo, the terrors that distracted me. (1) I say I knew it well. I knew what the old man felt, and pitied him, although I chuckled at heart. (2)

I knew that he had been lying awake ever since the first slight noise, when he had turned in the bed. His fears had been ever since growing upon him. He had been trying to fancy them causeless, but could not. He had been saying to himself—“It is nothing but the wind in the chimney—it is only a mouse crossing the floor,” or “it is merely a cricket which has made a single chirp.” (3) Yes, he had been trying to comfort himself with these suppositions: but he had found all in vain. All in vain; because Death, in approaching him, had stalked with his black shadow before him, and enveloped the victim. (4)

Character Traits:1. The narrator speaks of being

familiar with the sounds a person makes when overcome with terror—the narrator has made them himself. This detail suggests that the narrator is nervous and unhappy.

2. The narrator admits to understanding and pitying the old man but also says, “I chuckled at heart.” This detail paints a picture of the narrator as an uncaring character.

Compare and Contrast:3. According to the narrator, the old

man has been disturbed and is trying to calm himself. The old man’s perspective seems to be one of uncertainty and fear. By contrast, the narrator states with uncertainty what he believes the old man is thinking.

4. The repetition of “all in vain” shows that the narrator is nearly gleeful in discussing death. You can compare his perspective to your own to reach the conclusion that his perspective might not be normal.

Multidraft Reading:

First Reading: Listen to the story being read to you. Pencils down . . . Think what is the author’s purpose of writing this story? The author’s purpose of writing this story is to . . .

Second Reading: Analyze the text’s key ideas and details and its craft and structure, and respond to the side-column prompts.

Third Reading: Integrate knowledge and ideas, connect the text to other texts and to the world, and answer the end-of-selection questions.

The Tell-Tale HeartBy Edgar Allan Poe

True!—nervous—very, very dreadfully nervous I had been and am; but why will you say that I am mad? The disease had sharpened my senses—not destroyed—not dulled them. Above all was the sense of hearing acute. I heard all things in the heaven and in the earth. I heard many things in hell. How, then, am I mad? Hearken? And observe how healthily—how calmly I can tell you the whole story.

1. Critical Viewing: What kind of story do you expect to read, based on the title and the illustration? Explain

2. Compare and Contrast: The narrator and the author are not the same person. Contrast the way the narrator sees himself with the way the author portrays him.

3. Comprehension: What feature of the old man makes the narrator want to murder him?

4. Vocabulary: Cunningly: adv. In a way that is skillfully dishonest.Hearken: (v) listenDissimulation: (n) hiding of one’s feelings or purposes

It is impossible to say how first the idea entered my brain; but once conceived, it haunted me day and night. Object there was none. Passion there was none. I loved the old man. He had never wronged me. He had never given me insult. For his gold I had no desire. I think it was his eye! yes, it was this! One of his eyes resembled that of a vulture—a pale blue eye, with a film over it. Whenever it fell upon me, my blood ran cold; and so by degrees—very gradually—I made up my mind to take the life of the old man, and

thus rid myself of the eye forever.

Now this is the point. You fancy me mad. Madmen know nothing. But you should have seen me. You should have seen how wisely I proceeded—with what caution—with what foresight—with what dissimulation I went to work! I was never kinder to the old man than

5. Character: What character traits does the narrator reveal as he describes his murder plan?

6. Critical Viewing: How do the shadows and light affect the mood of the illustration above?

7. Comprehension: What steps does the narrator take to prevent the old man from hearing or seeing him?

Vocabulary:Deathwatches: (n) wood-boring beetles whose heads make a tapping sound; they are superstitiously regarded as an omen of deathSagacity: (n) high intelligence and sound judgment

Which word tells how the narrator enters the old man’s chamber?

Which word tells how the narrator speaks to the old ma n?

Both answers to the question “how” are adverbs that end in –ly. Adverbs of this type usually tell how an action is performed. In these examples, the action was performed “in a bold way” and “in a courageous way.”

Find the third example of such an adverb and explain how it follows the same rule as the other two.

during the whole week before I killed him. And every night, about midnight, I turned the latch of his door and opened it—oh, so gently! And then, when I had made an opening sufficient for my head, I put in a dark lantern, all closed, closed, so that no light shone out, and then I thrust in my head. Oh, you would have laughed to see how cunningly I thrust it in! I moved it slowly—very, very slowly, so that I might not disturb the old man’s sleep. It took me an hour to place my whole head within the opening so far that I could see him as he lay upon his bed. Ha!—would a madman have been so wise as this? And then, when my head was well in the room, I undid the lantern cautiously—oh, so cautiously—cautiously (for the hinges creaked)—I undid it just so much that a single thin ray fell upon the vulture eye. And this I did for seven long nights—every night just at midnight—but I found the eye always closed; and so it was impossible to do the work; for it was not the old man who vexed me, but his evil eye. And every morning, when the day broke, I went boldly into the chamber, and spoke courageously to him, calling him by name in a hearty tone, and inquiring how he had passed the night. So you see he would have been a very profound old man, indeed, to suspect that every night, just at twelve, I looked in upon him while he slept.

Upon the eighth night I was more than usually cautious in opening the door. A watch’s minute hand moves more quickly than did mine. Never, before that night, had I felt the extent of my own powers—of my sagacity. I could scarcely contain my feelings of triumph. To think that there I was, opening the door, little by little, and he not even to dream of my secret deeds or thoughts. I fairly chuckled at the idea; and perhaps he heard me; for he moved on the bed suddenly, as if startled. Now you may think that I drew back—but no. His room was as black as pitch with the thick darkness (for the shutters were close fastened, through fear of robbers), and so I knew that he could not see the opening of the door, and I kept pushing it on steadily, steadily.

I had my head in, and was about to open the lantern, when my thumb slipped upon the tin fastening, and the old man sprang up in the bed, crying out—“Who’s there?”

I kept quite still and said nothing. For a whole hour I did not move a muscle, and in the meantime I did not hear him lie down. He was still sitting up in the bed, listening;--just as I have done, night after night, hearkening to the deathwatches in the wall.

Presently I heard a slight groan, and I knew it was the groan of mortal terror. It was not a groan of pain or of grief—oh, no!—it was the low stifled sound that arises from the bottom of the soul when overcharged with awe. I knew the sound well. Many a night, just at midnight, when all the world slept, it was welled up from my own bosom, deepening, with its dreadful echo, the terrors that distracted me. I say I knew it well. I knew what the old man felt, and pitied him although I chuckled at heart.

I knew that he had been lying awake ever since the first slight noise, when he had turned in the bed. His fears had been ever since growing upon him. He had been trying to fancy them causeless, but could not. He had been saying to himself—“It is nothing but the wind in the chimney—it is only a mouse crossing the floor,” or “it is merely a cricket which has made a single chirp.” Yes, he had been trying to comfort himself with these suppositions: but he had found all in vain. All in vain; because DEATH, in approaching him, had stalked with his black shadow before him, and enveloped the victim. And it was the mournful influence of the

unperceived shadow that caused him to feel—although he neither saw nor heard—to feel the presence of my head within the room.

When I had waited a long time, very patiently, without hearing him lie down, I resolved to open a little—a very, very little crevice in the lantern. So I opened it—you cannot imagine how stealthily, stealthily—until, at length, a single dim ray, like the thread of the spider, shot from out the crevice and fell upon the vulture eye.

It was open—wide, wide open—and I grew furious as I gazed upon it. I saw it with perfect distinctness—

all a dull blue, with a hideous veil over it that chilled the very marrow in my bones; but I could see nothing else of the old man’s face or person for I had directed the ray as if by instinct, precisely upon the spot.

And now—have I not told you that what you mistake for madness is but over acuteness of the senses?—now, I say, there came to my ears a low, dull, quick sound, such as a watch makes when enveloped in cotton. I knew that sound well, too. It was the beating of the old man’s heart. It increased my fury, as the beating of a drum stimulates the soldier into courage.

But even yet I refrained and kept still. I scarcely breathed. I held the lantern motionless. I tried how steadily I could maintain the ray upon the eye. Meantime the hellish tattoo of the heart increased. It grew quicker and quicker, and louder and louder ever instant. The old man’s terror must have been extreme! It grew louder, I say, louder every moment!—do you mark me well? I have told you that I am nervous: so I am. And now at the dead hour of the night, amid the dreadful silence of that hold house, so strange a noise as this excited me to uncontrollable terror. Yet, for some minutes longer I refrained and stood still. But the beating grew louder, louder! I thought the heart must burst. And now a new anxiety seized me—the sound would be heard by a neighbor! The old man’s hour had come!

8. Character: What character traits does the narrator show here in his reaction to the old man’s groan?

9. Compare and Contrast: Compare and contrast the old man’s state of mind with that of the narrator.

Vocabulary:Resolved: v. decidedStealthily: adv. In a secret or sly way

10. Spiral Review: Plot: How does the narrator’s hearing the beating of the old man’s heart advance the plot?

Vocabulary:Vex: v. annoy; distress

11. Comprehension: How does the narrator kill the old man?

With a loud yell, I threw open the lantern and leaped into the room. He shrieked once—once only. In an instant I dragged him to the floor and pulled the heavy bed over him. I then smiled gaily, to find the deed so far done. But, for many minutes, the heart beat on with a muffled sound. This, however, did not vex me; it would not be heard through the wall. At length it ceased. The old man was dead. I removed the bed and examined the corpse. Yes, he was stone, stone dead. I placed my hand upon the heart and held it there many minutes. There was no pulsation. He was stone dead. His eye would trouble me no more. If still you think me mad, you will think so no longer when I

describe the wise precautions I took for the concealment of the body. The night waned, and I worked hastily, but in silence. First of all I dismembered the corpse. I cut off the head and the arms and the legs.

I then took up three planks from the flooring of the chamber, and deposited all between the scantlings. I then replaced the boards so cleverly, so cunningly, that no human eye—not even his—could have detected anything wrong. There was nothing to wash out—no stain of any kind—no blood-spot whatever. I had been too wary for that. A tub had

caught all—ha! ha!When I had made an end of these labors, it

was four o’clock—still dark as midnight. As the bell sounded the hour, there came a knocking at the street door. I went down to pen it with a light heart—for what had I now to fear? There entered three men, who introduced themselves, with perfect suavity, as officers of the police. A shriek had been heard by a neighbor during the night; suspicion of foul play had been aroused; information had been lodged at the police office, and they (the officers) had been deputed to search the premises.

I smiled—for what had I to fear? I bade the gentlemen welcome. The shriek, I said, was my own in a dream. The old man, I mentioned, was absent in the country. I took my visitors all over the house. I bade them search—and search well. I led them, at

length, to his chamber. I showed them his treasures, secure, undisturbed. In the enthusiasm of my confidence, I brought chairs into the room, and desired them here to rest from their fatigues, while I myself, in the wild audacity of my perfect triumph, placed my own seat upon the very spot beneath which reposed the corpse of the victim.The officers were satisfied. My manner had convinced them. I was singularly at ease. They sat, and while I answered cheerily, they chatted of familiar things. But, ere long, I felt myself getting pale

and wished them gone. My head ached, and I fancied a ringing in my ears: but still they sat and still chatted. The ringing became more distinct:--it continued and became more distinct: I talked more freely to get rid of the feeling: but it continued and gained definitiveness—until, at length, I found that the noise was not within my ears.

No doubt I now grew very pale;--but I talked more fluently, and with a heightened voice. Yet the sound increased—and what could I do? It was a low, dull, quick sound—much such a sound as a watch makes when enveloped in cotton. I gasped for breath—and yet the

12. Character: What do the narrator’s repeated statements about being sane indicate bout his character?

13. Compare and Contrast: Contrast the narrator’s perception of his situation with the perception most?

Vocabulary:Audacity: n. bold courage; nerve; shameless boldnessScantlings: (n) small beams or timbersGesticulations: (n) energetic hand or arm movement

14. Character: Which character traits allow the narrator to conceal the crime?

15. Compare and Contrast: Compare and contrast the perspective of the narrator with the likely perspectives of the officers.

officers heard it not. I talked more quickly—more vehemently; but the noise steadily increased. I arose and argued about trifles, in a high key and with

violent gesticulations; but the noise steadily increased. Why would they not be gone? I paced the floor to and fro with heavy strides, as if excited to fury by the observations of the men—but the noise steadily increased. Oh! what could I do? I foamed—I raved—I swore! I swung the chair upon which I had been sitting, and grated it upon the boards, but the noise arose over all and continually increased. It grew louder—louder—louder! And still the men chatted pleasantly, and smiled. Was it possible they heard not?—no, no! They heard!—they suspected!—they knew!—they were making a mockery of my horror!—this I thought, and this I think. But anything was better than this agony! Anything was more tolerable than this derision! I could bear those hypocritical smiles no longer! I felt that I must scream or die!—and no—again!—hark! louder! louder! louder! louder!—

“Villains!” I shrieked, “dissemble no more! I admit the deed!—tear up the planks!—here, here!—it is the beating of his hideous heart!”

Vocabulary:Derision: n. statements or actions making fun of someone or somethingDissemble: conceal one’s true feelings

16. Character: Which traits force the narrator to confess his crime?

Language Study:

Vocabulary: The words listed below appear in “The Tell-Tale Heart.” In each numbered item, replace the word or words in italics with a synonym from the vocabulary list.

Cunningly resolved stealthily vex derision

1. Leon decided firmly to become a better basketball player.

2. The dog’s constant barking began to annoy the neighbors.

3. She was elected because of her cleverly organized campaign.

4. Dressed in black, they silently crept up to the old castle.

5. All Lin’s ideas for a party them were met with ridicule.

Word Study

Part A: Explain how the Latin suffix –ity contributes to the meanings of complexity, continuity, and purity. Consult a dictionary if necessary.

Word StudyThe Latin suffix –ity means “state of being___,” or “condition of being_____,” or “character of being___.”

Words that end in this suffix are nouns. In this story, the main character is a murderer who displays great audacity—the character is being audacious, or bold—in denying his crime.

Part B: Use what you know about the Latin suffix –ity to answer each question. Explain your answers.

1. Would something that is a rarity be easy or hard to find?

2. Would someone’s timidity make public speaking easy?Literary AnalysisKey Ideas

1. (a) According to the story, why does the narrator kill the old man? (b) Draw Conslusions: What does the narrator fear? Use story details, including the narrator’s own words, to explain.

2. Compare and Contrast(a) Compare and contrast the perspectives of the narrator and old man on the night of the

murder.(b) Who reports what the old man is thinking and feeling?(c) Do you trust the narrator’s account of what happened? Cite details from the text to explain

why or why not.

3. Compare and Contrast(a) Summarize the narrator’s account of the police offers’ visit.(b) Compare your perspective on the visit with the narrator’s.(c) How would the description of the officers’ visit be different if it were told from the

perspective of one of them? Cite story details in our answer.

Craft and Structure:

4. Character Traits: Using the chart below, analyze the narrator’s character.(a) List three of the narrator’s traits in the first box.(b) In the second box, give details that show each trait. Use the narrator’s own word in at least

one example.

Narrator’s Character Traits

Examples

5. Character Traits:(a) Which of the characters are round characters and which are flat characters?(b) Why might readers care more about what happens to the round character(s) than the flat

one(s)? Support your answer with story details.

Integration of Knowledge and Ideas

6. (a) What sound drives the narrator to confess to the crime?(c) Apply: What does the narrator’s confession show about why people sometimes confess to

wrong doing, even if there is little chance their acts will be discovered?

7. (a) Assess: How does the narrator’s confession at the end of the story affect your willingness to trust the story he has told?(c) Make a Judgment: Is the narrator sane or insane? What textual details support your view?

8. Can all conflicts be resolved?(a) What conflicts does the narrator experience before and after the crime?(b) What leads to his final breakdown?(c) Have all his conflicts been resolved? Explain

Close Reading Activities

Conventions: Pronouns

Personal pronouns replace nouns in sentences. They refer to persons or things. Possessive pronouns show ownership. A reflexive pronoun indicates that someone or something performs an action to, for, or upon itself. An intensive pronoun adds emphasis to a noun or pronoun.

All pronouns take the place of or refer back to a noun or group of words acting as a noun. Pronouns can be grouped by person, as shown in the following chart. Note that reflexive and intensive pronouns look the same, but they function differently.

Personal Possessive Reflexive IntensiveFirst Person I, am, we, us My, mine, our,

oursI took myself home.We took ourselves outside.

I myself ran outside.We ourselves are unhappy with our won decision.

Second Person You Your, yours You are proud of yourself.You understand yourselves better than others do.

You yourself agreed.Even you yourself cannot know for sure.

Third Person He, she, it, him, her, they, them

His, her, hers, its, their, theirs

It could not move itself.They asked themselves.

The king himself sat down.They themselves admitted it.

Practice A:Fill in the appropriate personal or possessive pronouns. Identify the type of each.

1. The narrator is driven to confess by own madness. Type:

2. The old man wakes after hearing a noise in the room where sleeps. Type:

3. While talking to the policemen, the narrator wishes gone. Type:

4. Different readers form own opinions about the narrator. Type:

Reading Application: Find one sentence in “The Tell-Tale Hear” with a personal pronoun and one with a possessive pronoun.

Personal Pronoun:

Possessive Pronoun:

Practice B:Identify each reflexive and intensive pronoun in the following sentences.

1. As the story begins, he himself is describing his crime. Intensive/reflexive

2. You should ask yourself how you would have resolved the narrator’s conflict. Intensive/reflexive

3. The police themselves did not suspect him. Intensive/reflexive

4. When the police visited, the narrator worked himself into a panic. Intensive/reflexive

Writing Applications: Write two sentences about “The Tell-Tale Heart.” Use a reflexive pronoun in one and an intensive pronoun in the other.

Reflexive:

Intensive:

Common Core Standards:Reading Literature:RL8.7: Analyze the extent to which a filmed or live production of a story or drama stays faithful to or departs from the text or script, evaluating the choices made by the director or actors.

WritingW8.2: Write informative/explanatory texts to examine a topic and convey ideas, concepts, and information through the selection, organization, and analysis of relevant content.

Speaking and Listening:SL8.4: Present claims and findings, emphasizing salient points in a focused, coherent manner with relevant evidence, sound [and] valid reasoning, and well-chosen details; use appropriate eye contact, adequate volume, and clear pronunciation.

Language:L8.1: Demonstrate command of the conventions of Standard English grammar and usage when writing or speaking.

Six Traits Focus:Ideas and OrganizationWriting to Sources:

Explanatory Text Write a character profile of the narrator in “The Tell-Tale Heart.” Explain how the narrator’s traits affect the story’s plot and resolution. Begin by taking Notes on the story:

Review the chart of traits you created for the narrator Reread the end of the story to review why the narrator acts the way he does when the

police arrive

Begin your draft with a clear description of the narrator’s personality. Then, show the connection between the narrator’s personality and the story’s ending. Support your analysis of his personality and of the ending with relevant story details.

The narrator in the “Tell-Tale Heart” is

Grammar Application: Make sure that your character profile uses pronouns correctly and consistently.Speaking and Listening:

Presentation of Ideas: Prepare and present an oral response to a film version of “The Tell-Tale Heart.” Evaluate which is more frightening—the original story or the film.

With your teacher’s help and approval, find a film version of the story. (Use the ones from the Nearpod activity done with Ms. Egnew

As you view the film, take notes on its similarities to and differences from Poe’s story, including similarities and differences in plot, characters, and dialogue.

Evaluate the director’s decisions about when to change elements of Poe’s story and when to keep them the same. Do these decisions make the film more or less effective than the story? Clearly state your evaluation at the beginning of your response. Then, support your evaluation with examples form the story and the film. Make sure each detail you cite helps to prove your point.

Make clear, logical connections between the evidence you give and the points it supports. Use phrases such as “as shown by” to link your points to the supporting evidence you provide.

To give your response greater depth, call attention to specific techniques used by Edgar Allan Poe or by the filmmakers to provoke a reaction from the audience.

As you share your response with class members, make appropriate eye contact. Speak clearly and loudly to aid listeners’ comprehension.