Abstract

Bringing together legal, literary, and cultural studies, this article builds from a close reading of madness in William Shakespeare’s play Hamlet to some psycho-social theories of malingering and the insanity defense in the modern United States. The basis of these theories is the notion that feigned madness – whether purposeful malingering or a failed insanity defense – often signifies actual madness of a lesser sort. When someone is found to be “faking it,” however, that discovery can result in a widespread assumption of mental health in the person on trial, an assumption that often turns out to be wrong.

Bibliography

Robert Schug and Henry F. Fradella, Mental Illness and Crime (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2015)

Lindsey Row-Heyveld, “Antic Dispositions: Mental and Intellectual Disabilities in Early Modern Revenge Tragedy,” in Recovering Disability in Early Modern England (Allison P. Hobgood and David Houston Wood, eds) (Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Press, 2013), pp. 73–87.

Eleanor Prosser, Hamlet and Revenge (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1967)

Harald Merckelbach et al., “Exaggerating Psychopathology Produces Residual Effects That Are Resistant to Corrective Feedback: An Experimental Demonstration,” in Applied Neuropsychology: Adult 22(1) (2015), 16–22. 

Michael L. Perlin, “‘The Borderline Which Separated You From Me’: The Insanity Defense, the Authoritarian Spirit, the Fear of Faking, and the Culture of Punishment,” Iowa Law Review 82 (1997), 1375–426.