Insanity Defense
Insanity Defense
Samantha Valladares
Psychology A5
Insanity defense is something everyone has a different perspective on. Some people accept it, while others don’t believe it’s the correct thing to do. In criminal trials, insanity defense is the claim that the defendant is not responsible for his or her actions due to mental health problems. The person who commits the crime realizes, understands, and admits that they have committed a crime however they argue they should not be held accountable for their actions due to mental illnesses. In cases like these they plead “not guilty by reason of insanity.” There are of course several different definitions of insane such as the M’Naghten rule, the Durham rule, the Federal rule, and the Model Penal code. With appropriate test set by the jury, forensic mental health professionals can test and evaluate the defendant to see if they qualify under insanity defense. Their testament can guide the jury; however they cannot decide the defendant’s punishment. The decision is up to the jury, she/he is then left to say whether the defendant is or isn’t insane. This decision is also known as the “ultimate issue” or the “ultimate question.” Whether or not something like this should be acceptable in a trial is questioned by many, I believe that this should not be acceptable. Insanity defense should indeed be abolished. Some people are so mentally ill that they lose a sense of what is happening within or around them. If they let “insane” people go free that would put so many other people in danger, besides the ones that they have already hurt. Sure, they might be mentally ill but that should not be a reason why they are left free to go. This is unfair to the victims from crimes made by insane people. I feel like if the insane person or their family knows that they aren’t capable of being around people without hurting them then they shouldn’t be around people. They shouldn’t be locked up in an
Samantha Valladares
Psychology A5
Insanity defense is something everyone has a different perspective on. Some people accept it, while others don’t believe it’s the correct thing to do. In criminal trials, insanity defense is the claim that the defendant is not responsible for his or her actions due to mental health problems. The person who commits the crime realizes, understands, and admits that they have committed a crime however they argue they should not be held accountable for their actions due to mental illnesses. In cases like these they plead “not guilty by reason of insanity.” There are of course several different definitions of insane such as the M’Naghten rule, the Durham rule, the Federal rule, and the Model Penal code. With appropriate test set by the jury, forensic mental health professionals can test and evaluate the defendant to see if they qualify under insanity defense. Their testament can guide the jury; however they cannot decide the defendant’s punishment. The decision is up to the jury, she/he is then left to say whether the defendant is or isn’t insane. This decision is also known as the “ultimate issue” or the “ultimate question.” Whether or not something like this should be acceptable in a trial is questioned by many, I believe that this should not be acceptable. Insanity defense should indeed be abolished. Some people are so mentally ill that they lose a sense of what is happening within or around them. If they let “insane” people go free that would put so many other people in danger, besides the ones that they have already hurt. Sure, they might be mentally ill but that should not be a reason why they are left free to go. This is unfair to the victims from crimes made by insane people. I feel like if the insane person or their family knows that they aren’t capable of being around people without hurting them then they shouldn’t be around people. They shouldn’t be locked up in an