Before the 18th century it was very common for a guilty person to try to escape harsh punishment under the guise of impulsive madness after committing a crime. However, by the early 18th century, it was increasingly difficult to prove that an individual was insane after committing a vicious crime. The case of Francis Valentine Shortis was one such case. His lawyers had a very difficult case on their hands and the only option they felt could help their client was to use the insanity defense. Their attempt was to persuade the twelve jurors that at the time of this terrible crime Shortis was not mentally responsible and therefore suffered from a mental illness. There was numerous evidence provided by the Crown about Shortis's mental capacity which indicated he was a man of sound mind, challenging the very movement of the defense's case. The Crown had a reasonable amount of evidence presented by Shortis' colleagues, former friends and neighbors to support their contention that Shortis was not insane and, in fact, was acting very intelligently. There is no doubt that Shortis did some very bad things during his childhood. in Ireland this would make an individual presume to be mad. In contrast, some of his former neighbors found Shortis to be a normal, playful and very mischievous boy. According to Friedland (1986), the crown (Macmaster) stated that "he committed many eccentric, reckless and even reckless acts in Ireland, but was never arrested there or committed to an asylum" (p.27). One of the psychiatrists, Dr. Buck, testified during the trial that he disagreed with the other psychiatrists about Shortis' state of mind at the time of the murder. He said… in the middle of a paper… that, if it existed, it would justify or excuse his act” (Friedland, 1986, p.109). Based on the evidence and testimony presented in the Valentine Shortis Case, there is no doubt that Shortis is indeed a sane person who committed a brutal crime. The evidence presented by the Crown indicated that Shortis was of sound mind and knew that the act he committed was wrong. Shortis tried to hide any evidence he had shared with his friends about the murder and the mill robbery. He had also spoken to Millie Anderson and her brother Jack to provide him with an alibi. This shows that Shortis knew it was wrong to commit such a crime and therefore required an alibi to be ruled out as a possible suspect. Therefore, according to the Canadian Criminal Code, Francis Valentine Shortis is not insane and therefore guilty of the brutal murder of his colleagues.