Yet, even so, such a classification would instantly remedy that anachronism in our present law which refuses to recognize as irresponsible those born without power to control their emotions--the psychopathic inferiors of science, and the real victims of dementia praecox.
Of course, if the insanity under which the defendant labors bears no relation to or connection with the deed for which he is on trial, there would logically be no reason why his insanity on other subjects should be any defence to his crime.

For example, there is the well-known case of the Harvard professor who was apparently sane on all other matters, yet believed himself to be possessed of glass legs.

Had this man in wanton anger struck and killed another, his "glass leg" delusion could not logically have availed him.

If, however, he had struck and killed one who he believed was going to shatter his legs it might have been important.

The illustration is clear enough, but its application probably involves a mistaken premise.