Crimes are committed for various reasons
Crimes are committed for various reasons where some acts are violent, damaging and also malicious. On the other hand ordinary citizens need to be protected by the law from such criminal acts. The law protects the citizens when the judges pass different forms of punishments to the suspected persons. However, before the judges give out their ruling, the suspects of criminal cases are given a chance to defend themselves. In most cases the suspects defend themselves saying that at the time of the act they were in a state of insanity. In the recent past insanity defense has become a hot topic in today’s crime dramas.
It has caused so much controversy due to its perceived meaning which is excusing someone from a crime which has been committed. Even though much has been said that insanity is used to avoid accountability of the act it is the least used defense strategy. Many efforts have been put in order to abolish the defense of insanity however I still defend that insanity should use as a defense mechanism. Thus this essay proves that insanity should not be abolished as a defense mechanism.
The advocates who support insanity defense say that the basic principal of criminal law is at stake. It is believed that punishment and life sentence are only applicable if the defendant deserves them. Also the basic condition for one to receive a punishment is that the person who acted against the criminal law must have responsibility as a moral agent. This condition is not applicable to mentally disturbed person. (Knoll, 2008)The mentally disabled persons lacks the responsibly as a moral agent. Also his mind is too irrational such that compulsion is not possible to him. Thus it would be very unfair to punish such an individual with such a critical condition. In some cases there are people who consume hallucinogens out of their own will and end up committing serious crimes. They should be reasonable for them to use insanity as a defense mechanism. Instead of being taken to prison the mentally disturbed persons should be taken to a psychiatric for further medical attention.
The word insanity is a legal term and not a medical term. A mentally ill persons is described as an insane person, however if a legal test of sanity was performed it would be said that they are sane.( Simon, 1967) In addition, the legal tests for insanity is passed when the mental condition for the defendant is so impaired that the fact finder makes a conclusion that the defendant has lost her free will. Free will cannot be explained in medical terms thus it also difficult for a psychiatrist to make a conclusion that the defendants capability of voluntary choice was affected by mental impairment. Having no way to measure insanity then jury’s decision would be considered unreliable if he used the opinions of a psychiatrist.
Also, some states have defended insanity defense however, they have replaced it with a new verdict of guilty but insane. Thus during the time of sentencing, mental illness is taken into consideration. The verdict allows a judge to determine the period of imprisonment in a hospital prison. This then takes the burden to the defendant to prove that he is not dangerous or even mentally ill so that he can be released. However there are various criticism which are against insanity defense. One of the critics is that the defendants use the defense of insanity as a way to escape any forms of punishment. When the defendants are released they pose a threat to the entire community. Also (Sinnott –Armstrong, 2011) argues that punishing the insane promotes deterrence. Punishing the insane people may prevent the sane criminals from faking insanity to avoid getting punished. (Goldstein, 1962)However this when this action is taken it may end up harming people with critical attention who need medical attention instead of imprisonment and punishment.
In conclusion, punishing the mentally disturbed persons may cause adverse effects to their state of health. In addition, this may be depriving their basic right of getting medical attention. Thus abolishing insanity defense may not be the best cause of action.Besdies, among all the cases which have a plea of insanity the cases which the plea is granted is only a small percentage. Thus the courts are also keen to ensure that before the grant the defendant to be insane all the necessary conditions have to be passed. Thus abolishing insanity would not be advisable instead necessary measures should be applied in considering if a defendant is insane. This will help prevent the innocent persons who are mentally disabled from suffering tough punishments by the law.
References
Goldstein, J., & Katz, J. (1962). Abolish the Insanity Defense–Why Not. Yale LJ, 72, 853.
Knoll IV, J. L., & Resnick, P. J. (2008). Insanity defense evaluations: Toward a model for evidence-based practice. Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention, 8(1), 92.
Simon, R. J. (1967). The jury and the defense of insanity. Transaction Publishers.
Sinnott-Armstrong, W., & Levy, K. (2011). Insanity defenses.