the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts. Mental disease of defect does not otherwise constitute a defense. (b) Burden of Proof. The defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by clear and convincing evidence.
             There are three elements that are different in the ALI test from the McNaughten. The first element is " Defect of reason or irrationality" that is missing from the ALI test. According to Herbert Fingarette it is a "distinctive and essential element in the test rather than a piece of redundant rhetoric." Further more Fingarette said that the omission of " defect of reason" in the ALI test, is fatally vague and misleading, " it can be taken to imply that what is ultimately at issue is involuntariness of ignorance, whereas what actually ought to be at issue is irrationality." The second element that the McNaughten test does not have and the ALI does, is the "Volitional". This element states that the mentally ill persons that can not control their behavior are not to blame as the ones that do not know or appreciate the wrongs of what they are doing. The third element that the ALI test requires and not the McNaughten is "The Lack of Substantial Capacity Requirement." This requirement provides the acquittal in cases even if the defendant retains some capacity.
             The Penal Code suggests that it does not hold a person responsible for a criminal act if that person has a mental disease or defect and at his capacity can not appreciate or conforms the criminal act.
             The Current Federal Rule took the responsibility from the plaintiff of proving the defendant insane and gave the Burden of proof to the defendant. The defense has to prove with clear and convincing evidence the defendants' insanity.
             In the case of Commonwealth v. Tempest, the defendant was convicted of first degree murder against her six...