IN June, the Supreme Court upheld a narrow Arizona test for legal insanity, which asked simply whether mental disorder prevented the defendant from knowing right from wrong.
On the other hand, legislation that has eliminated or unduly constrained the insanity defense, often in response to unpopular verdicts of not guilty by reason of insanity, is likewise off the mark.
In an effort to hold most people accountable, and recognizing both the difficulty of establishing what was in the defendant's mind at the time of the crime and the defendant's incentive to lie about it, the law sought to establish strict standards for responsibility.
Once we agree that there may be some small percentage of people whose moral cognition is seriously disordered, how can the law identify those people in a way that will not allow the materialism of science to expand the definitions of excusing conditions to include all criminals? Punishing the deserving wrongdoers among us those who intentionally violate the criminal law and are cognitively unimpaired takes people seriously as moral agents and lies at the heart of what being civilized is all about. …show more content…
A sensible test for legal insanity, fairly applied, can help prevent the concept of the responsible person from disappearing, either because the law naively accepts a cacophony of untestable excuses, or because cynical legislators overreact by permitting the conviction and punishment of blameless
On the other hand, legislation that has eliminated or unduly constrained the insanity defense, often in response to unpopular verdicts of not guilty by reason of insanity, is likewise off the mark.
In an effort to hold most people accountable, and recognizing both the difficulty of establishing what was in the defendant's mind at the time of the crime and the defendant's incentive to lie about it, the law sought to establish strict standards for responsibility.
Once we agree that there may be some small percentage of people whose moral cognition is seriously disordered, how can the law identify those people in a way that will not allow the materialism of science to expand the definitions of excusing conditions to include all criminals? Punishing the deserving wrongdoers among us those who intentionally violate the criminal law and are cognitively unimpaired takes people seriously as moral agents and lies at the heart of what being civilized is all about. …show more content…
A sensible test for legal insanity, fairly applied, can help prevent the concept of the responsible person from disappearing, either because the law naively accepts a cacophony of untestable excuses, or because cynical legislators overreact by permitting the conviction and punishment of blameless