Arguments Against Insanity Defense

The insanity defense is a defense used in criminal court cases. This defense argues that the defendant is not responsible for his/her actions at the time of a crime due to a mental illness. Although the insanity defense is used in less than 1% of cases, when it is used it causes worldwide controversy and outrage. Many people oppose the insanity defense, claiming that defendants who are found not guilty by reason of insanity are getting a “get out of jail free card”. Despite what skeptics may think, the insanity defense is a plausible defense that should be allowed in court cases when used properly. The first question one may ask about the insanity defense is why is the insanity defense needed? According to an article written by John P. Martin, “it is an attempt to impose a moral check on a system largely designed to weigh facts
In March 2002, Andrea was sentenced to life in jail with chance of parole in forty years. While in prison, Andrea was able to receive antidepressants but was not able to receive the therapy and psychological help that she needed. On July 26, 2006, Andrea’s sentence was overturned and she was found not guilty by reason of insanity. She now resides in a low security mental facility where she receives the proper mental care. She spends most of her time alone, where she enjoys watching homemade videos of her children. Although many skeptics believe that insanity can be faked, there are many tests conducted to ensure a defendant’s insanity. The first of these tests is known as the M’Naghten test. Daniel M’Naghten was a Scottish woodturner who assassinated Edward Drummond at point blank range because he thought Drummond was conspiring against him. M’Naghten was found not guilty by reason of insanity, and was remanded to a mental institution where he eventually passed away. Now, this test is used on insane defendants to determine if they know the difference between right and