The Insanity Defense and its Controversy

A person is declared legally insane when at the time of the crime they couldnt tell between right or wrong or because of their poor mental health they couldnt control their actions. The insanity defense is one of the most highly controversial topics in the criminal justice system. Mainly because of its justifiability, the insanity defense is supported by some and rejected by others. Moreover, some people believe in a compromise between the pro and con argument. Should courts acquit people who are criminally insane, or should they be convicted? Should they be institutionalized in mental hospitals or should they be sent to jail with other criminals?

The Insanity Defense

Acquaintance or Conviction?

Angelica M. Ardines

ENC 1102-SEC 0014

Convicted
Opponents of the insanity defense believe that criminals who plea insanity are just merely trying to get away with the crime they committed. This view is usually held by a the majority of the public, especially when controversial cases like those of John Hinckley Jr. and Andrea Yates are highly publicized. Critics believe that convicting a criminal is a matter of moralsif someone committed a crime they should be imprisoned. They believe the insanity defense keeps criminals from receiving the punishment they deserve for the crime committed. Furthermore they believe that the insanity defense is a rich persons defense (Insanity Defense, n.d.). People who can afford psychiatrists, note the critics, are able to give expert testimonials in their trials, which is essential to the insanity plea; those who cant afford such services dont plea insanity. For this, the opponents believe, the insanity defense should be banned completely.

Convicted and Treated

Many critics of the insanity defense believe that those people who committed a crime, unarguably, should be found guilty. However, these criminals should receive proper treatment for their mental illness. States have taken steps to implement was known as guilty but mentally ill. Defendants found guilty but mentally ill are placed in general prisons with availability of mental health treatment (Gundlach-Evans, 2006). This perspective serves as the point of compromise between those who believe the legally insane defendants should be acquitted and those who believe they should be convicted.

Acquitted and Institutionalized

Supporter of the insanity defense believe that convicting someone deemed legally insane for a crime they committed, while having no control over their actions, is inhumane. They believe these people should be acquitted for their crimes, yet they should receive treatment for their illness. Their main argument is that people declared legally insane, do serve time for their crimes, except that instead of going to prison, they go to a mental institution (Lilienfeld and Arkowitz, 2010). Here they can get the treatment needed to better their mental health.

References
Andrea Yates Sets Insanity Defense [Photograph]. (2006). Retrieved March 26 2014 from http://www.cbsnews.com/news/andrea-yates-setsinsanity-defense/ Gundlach-Evans, A. D. (2006). State v. Calin: The Paradox of the Insanity Defense and Guilty but Mentally Ill Statute, Recognizing Impairment without Affording Treatment. South Dakota Law Review, 51(1), 122-151. Insanity Defense. (n.d.) West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. (2008). Retrieved March 26 2014 from http://legaldictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Insanity+Defense Lilienfeld, S. O., & Arkowitz, H. (2010, December 23). The insanity verdict on trial. Retrieved March 26 2014 from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-insanityverdict-on-trial/ [Untitled picture of two signs with the words sanity and insanity pointing in opposite directions]. Retrieved on March 26 2014 from http://www.simonattorneys.com/blog/bid/97118/Criminal -Insanity-Defense-No-Longer-Tried-Separately

Figure 1Andrea Yates Sets Insanity Defense

Andrea Yates Sets Insanity Defense (2006)