Arguments Against The Insanity Defense

The insanity defense allows a defendant in a case to plead not guilty by reason of insanity. Law Digests says that “the Insanity Defense is probably the most controversial of all criminal defense strategies”. The definition of legal insanity is when a person has a "Disorder which impairs the human mind and prevents distinguishing between actions that are right or wrong" (Duhaime 1). The defendant then has to prove to the court that he did not understand what he was doing (Findlaw 1). Along with the insanity defense, some states allow them to plead innocent by reason of irresistible impulse which is another form of the insanity defense (Law Digest 1). The insanity plea should be eliminated because it allows criminals to be held unaccountable …show more content…
Jrank points out that many people have misconceptions about the insanity defense. One of these misconceptions is that it is used more often than it actually is. The defense is only attempted in about one percent of all criminal cases, and only twenty percent of these attempts actually win their cases (Jrank 1). One thing that people do not think about is that when a defendant pleads insanity they are admitting their guilt; because of this if they do not win their plea they will automatically be given a guilty verdict. They could also receive a more severe punishment for trying to go through with an insanity defense if they are found to be free of any type of mental illness. Jrank also point out that most of the cases that go very public have to deal with murders. This leads the public to think the defense is mostly used to get out of murders when in fact; sixty to seventy percent of cases deal with other crimes ranging from assault to shoplifting. As of today 46 of our 50 states have some form of insanity defense, of these 46 there are 45 that base insanity on either the M’Naghten Rule or the MPC Test (Cevallos 1). Cevallos also says that the absence of some form of the insanity defense is unconstitutional. This concept has caused many states that were torn between keeping and getting rid of the insanity plea to keep …show more content…
Michael Ten makes the statement that it is not possible to prove someone did not know the difference between right and wrong when they committed a crime. One example Ten makes is that there is a separation between religion and state, this makes it so a defendant cannot use god as an excuse (Ten 1). When that concept is thought about and applied to the insanity plea it is not much different. He says that there should also be a separation between psychiatry and state, which would make it so defendants could not use insanity to get out of a crime. It would be so any mental problems that the defendant has would be put aside and they would be tried as any other person