Before the 18th century, it was very common for a guilty person to try to escape severe punishment under the pretext of impulsive madness after committing a crime. However, in the early 18th century, it was more difficult to prove that an individual had become insane after committing a heinous crime. The case of Francis Valentine Shortis is one of them. His lawyers had a very difficult case on their hands and the only option they believed could help their client was to invoke the insanity defense. Their attempt was to persuade the twelve jurors that at the time of this appalling crime, Shortis was in fact not mentally responsible and was therefore suffering from mental illness. Extensive evidence was provided by the Crown on Shortis's mental capacity which indicated that he was a man of sound mind, thereby challenging the very motion of the defense case. The Crown had a reasonable amount of evidence presented by Shortis' colleagues, former friends and neighbors to support its argument that Shortis was not crazy and that in fact he had acted very intelligently. There is no doubt that Shortis did some very bad things during his childhood. in Ireland it would make an individual believe he must be crazy. On the contrary, some of his former neighbors considered Shortis to be an ordinary, playful and very mischievous boy growing up. According to Friedland (1986), the Crown (Macmaster) stated that "he had committed many eccentric, reckless and even imprudent acts in Ireland, but he was never arrested or confined in an insane asylum there" ( p.27). One of the psychiatrists, Dr. Buck, testified at trial that he disagreed with other psychiatrists about Shortis' state of mind at the time of the murder. He said... in the middle of a paper... information which, if it existed, would justify or excuse his action” (Friedland, 1986, p. 109). Based on the evidence and testimony presented in the case of Valentine Shortis, 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 the act he committed was wrong. Shortis attempted to cover up any evidence he had shared with his friends about the murder and robbery at the mill. He had also spoken with 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 requested an alibi in order to be excluded 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..