Arguments Against Insanity Defense
If there is a major flaw found in the tests, then there should be corrections made to them. These tests are the M 'Naghten rule, the Irresistible Impulse test, the Durham rule, and the Model Penal Code. These standards should be closely reviewed on how precise they can be. In each state where the defense exists, the best test option has to be chosen. However, if none if these standards are good enough for the use of the defense, then there should be better standards produced by the criminal law. Law and Psychology have to play hand in hand dealing with the process of the defense. There has to be balance in these two in order for the management of the plea. The process of the insanity plea has to be reviewed thoroughly to fix any inconveniences.
The other alternatives of the insanity defense are not seen to be quite useful and beneficial. Another alternative of the defense is the mens rea proposal. Abolishing the mens rea as an alternative will benefit the moral background of the criminal law. In “Abolition of the Insanity Defense Violates Due Process”, Stephen J. Morse and Richard J. Bonnie …show more content…
The insanity plea will not be completely perfect, but the changes can benefit the defendants, attorneys, psychiatrists, and psychologists. The defendant will be subject to a new and improved administration of the defense. The tests and evaluations will be more fairly accommodated to each individual. The attorneys will have a better method for the usage of the defense. In addition, there will not be major flaws which would others doubt of existence of the insanity defense. The criminal law will make sure that psychiatrists and psychologists will only make a judgement off a certain area of study they are qualified for. Again, they will be more certain of the specific procedures that every defendant has to face in order to prove their insanity. Defendants with possible mental illnesses would have the ability to use the plea if needed and with better