The tummy trouble defence

We have all heard ingenious defence arguments in criminal proceedings. But here’s a new one to me: I’m calling it the ‘tummy trouble’ defence.

“My Lord, my client Mr. Farnsworthy takes the position that he was away at a spa in Grafton when the alleged burglary took place; and in the alternative, if he was indeed in Waupoos at the time, he was there for the purpose of selling encyclopedias, and not for some criminal purpose; and in the further alternative, if his intentions were in fact criminal in nature, he was only the dupe of the dastardly Smithers, who masterminded this heinous crime; and in the further alternative, if he was not a mere pawn in someone else’s evil scheme, his capacity to form the necessary mala fides to commit a criminal act was diminished because he was sleepwalking at the time; and in the further alternative, he was the victim of a privileged upbringing, and had never experienced anything that would test his power of self-denial; and in the still futher alternative—”

“Yes, Counsel: out with it.”

“His microbes made him do it.”“What the devil are you suggesting?”“I’m suggesting, my Lord, that the man was effectively held prisoner by his tummy trouble—by tiny microbes swirling around in his gut.”

“But that’s preposterous! What precedent do you have?”“My Lord, I cite a recent article in the prestigious journal Bioessays, reported upon recently in the New York Times. My Lord, the body houses over 100 trillion microbes and other bacteria. Some of them are good for us, some of them not so good. The article suggests that just as some parasites induce their host species to behave in ways that are good for the parasite and bad for the host, so too these microbes and bacteria may act as a kind of puppet master and alter the biochemistry of the brain, thereby influencing it to do things that are beyond the host’s control. Take, for example, food cravings—”

“Counsel, are you suggesting that I am overweight?” “Not at all, my Lord. To the contrary. But I am suggesting that we must be open to the scientific possibility that one or more of the microbes in my client’s gut area tricked his brain to steal so as to keep it living in the standard to which it had grown accustomed, so to speak. So, from a legal standpoint, there can be no criminal intent.”

“But I thought microbes had something to do with yogurt?”

“Indeed, my Lord. And I am not suggesting that the majority of microbes in the human gut are not upstanding, hardworking and generally beneficial from a human health standpoint—yogurt being Exhibit A. But I am suggesting this court cannot find my client guilty of an offence until the Crown proves that none of the microbes in my client’s gut at the time of the offence had any sinister capability. And, since the Crown has not even provided a breath sample, let alone a microbe sample, this Court has no alternative but to dismiss the charge and free my client.” “Counsel, are you suggesting that this Court create a precedent that would allow any Tom, Dick or Harrry to walk free because there could —could—be one manipulative microbe in his tummy?” “My Lord, my respect for the agility of the judicial mind is growing by leaps and bounds as I stand here and listen to your Lordship’s superb precis of my client’s final alternative defence.”

“Counsel for the prosecution, what do you have to say to this?”

A brief pause ensues. Both counsel and his Lordship engage in mumbles. Then his Lordship bangs his gavel and speaks firmly and loudly.

“Counsel for the prosecution, you intend, I understand, to withdaw all the charges but one; and, counsel for the defence, I gather that the accused will plead guilty to that remaining charge. Is that correct?” “Yes, my Lord,” is the reply to both counsels.

“All right. Mr. Farnsworthy, stand up. I find you guilty of the offence of selling encyclopedias without a licence and sentence you to time served. You are free to go. Next case!”

dsimmonds@wellingtontimes.ca