Criminal insanity as a defense is a topic that has received a lot of attention in the past few years. In most states defendants can be found not guilty by reason of insanity if there is enough evidence to show the lack of ability of the defendant to understand the difference between right and wrong at the time of the crime. The debate lies in this very point. What should be done with the criminally insane? I feel that first you must attempt to understand what causes insanity? Is insanity a physical or psychological problem? For the remainder of this paper I wish to explore these questions to better formulate my own opinion on the use of insanity as a defense.
Encyclopedia.com describes insanity as "a mental disorder of such severity as to render its victim incapable of managing his affairs or of conforming to social standards. Today, the term insanity is used chiefly in criminal law, to denote mental aberrations or defects that may relieve a person from the legal consequences of his or her acts." If a criminal does not know the difference between right and wrong then should they be held accountable for their crimes? If they don't understand that what they are doing is criminal because they don't have the mental capacity or health, shouldn't they be treated as if they were patients with a disease? In 1994, the Supreme Court decided that states were not constitutionally bound to allow insanity as a defense. Three states, Montana, Utah, and Idaho have since abolished this defense, forcing all defendants to stand trial with the same possible sentencing (Criminal Law.) There is one major problem to this method of justice, however. If the person is truly mentally deficient, it is possible that the much needed "mens rea" may not be proved, forcing a not guilty verdict. This could allow a potentially dangerous person, free to roam the streets.
One common belief as to why people become criminally insane is ...