This is where it becomes more complex. Tests can show a defendant having no capacity, some capacity, or even all capacities. Some of the tests are the "irresistible impulse" test, the Model Penal Code, and "lack-of-substantial capacity" test (Phelps, Lehman 2005). The "irresistible impulse" test can tell rather or not the offender suffers from a mental illness that prohibits control of personal conduct. In this type of circumstance, it would be considered appropriate to be arbitrated as not guilty by reason of insanity. This is true even if the defendant had the accommodation to differentiate what is just from what is incorrect. As stated in the article Criminal Law, "Under the Model Penal Code test, a person is not responsible for criminal conduct if, at the time of such conduct, he or she lacks the capacity either to appreciate the criminality or the wrongfulness of the conduct" (Phelps, Lehman 2005). However, committing these crimes repeatedly over a period of time is not acceptable and they can not use the insanity defense. Another test that determines rather or not it is appropriate for an offender to use the insanity defense is the "lack-of-substantial" capacity test. Under this test it is appropriate to use this defense when the defendant is lacking knowledge of good and bad because of the mental illness …show more content…
I have a mental illness myself and I have never thought of hurting anyone nor have I ever had any type of situation in which I have hurt anyone or committed any crime. I choose to take my medication every day and I am a very compliant patient with therapy. I am a strong believer of honesty and integrity. I understand some people may have rage or anger when they are mentally ill, but this does not excuse them from the crime they have committed. If that person would take their medications and attend the appropriate therapy sessions, they would be able to learn to control their behavior. The public can also see this either way, but some can see it as ways to cover up their crimes as