In the news

His explanation is that it seems inconceivable that he would have done that were his mind functioning properly, and the jury have decided that they cannot say that beyond reasonable doubt, he is incorrect in that argument.

Gets a bit philosophical here, but if we can claim the benefits of 'normal operation' of our own minds, I'm not quite sure how we can dodge accountability should there be a seemingly temporary glitch and things go wrong.

People this experienced tend not to just crash.

On a long enough timeline everyone crashes.