The first example is a crime, the second an accident, and therefore is not a valid example. What's insanity have to do with either example?
Those were illustrations of the principle that we don't punish based on the egregiousness of the outcome but rather the level of fault. The level of fault belonging to a truly insane person (e.g., someone with a high fever who believes, due to delirium, that he's killing a grizzly bear with a butcher's knife that's attacking his toddler, but in reality is attacking his mother-in-law with said butcher's knife who was merely changing his toddler's diapers) is closer to example 2 than 1, i.e., the punishment in a criminal case should fit the level of fault, not the level of damage caused. This is what the insanity defense is meant to address.
