The Insanity Defense
A man wakes up in the middle of the night and kills his entire family. In court, his lawyer helps him plead the insanity defense because he has a mental illness, and he had one of his episodes the night he killed his family. He gets the guilty but insane verdict and is thrown in a psychiatric hospital for twenty years. He is later released into the public. Some people believe that such cases are outrageous, whereas others argue that it is a human right as the mental illness made the person not responsible for the crime. While I belong in the latter group, this paper will argue for the former, indicating why the insanity defense should be banned from the justice system.
The insanity defense is position criminals take during a criminal case claiming that they are not responsible for their actions as they were unable to differentiate right or wrong due to mental illness. In these cases, insanity can be tested in four ways. The M’Naghten rule suggests that the defendant could not comprehend his actions. Also, the Durham rule provides that the defendant is mentally ill, the irresistible impulse establishes just that, and Model Penal Code indicates that the defendant has a mental condition that prevented him from understanding why what he did was criminal (Justia, 1). Some of these tests are detestable as they are encouraging leniency in punishment because a lot of criminal cases the defendant could claim one of the above symptoms.
Given the above example, what if the man was intoxicated and on drugs he could pass the third test because intoxication removes impulse control. But this person would not be taken to the psychiatric hospital instead of the prison. Notably, intoxication is voluntary yet mental illnesses are not. For this reason, the case can be treated differently. However, both of these people need to be punished so that they can see the error in their ways.
Furthermore, most people tend to use the insanity defense as a get out of jail card because they know that even in atrocious criminal acts, the insane are treated the same. Mainly, they are put in a mental hospital and released when the doctors think they are ready. Hence, even aa normal person could find a way to claim that they are legally insane so that they can spend some time in a hospital and leave unscathed. Math et al. (381) explain that people who do not know what they are doing or whether it is right or wrong can be considered not to have the capacity to commit crimes. Hence, they should not be punished for it. Henceforth, instead of punishing the guilty party, they are provided with treatment for as long as is possible and released back to society. What are the chances that it will happen again? This is a question that the justice system needs to ask because an insanity plea means that these people are claiming that they should not be living with the rest of the civilization as they cannot control their actions. As a result, if they are being taken to the psychiatric hospital, it should be for the rest of their lives despite whether they get better, as one way or another, the guilty party should be punished. It is only fair, and it will give an example to all those people who think that mental illness can be an excuse for committing a crime.
In conclusion, all people who commit crimes need to be punished accordingly, ill or not ill, because exceptions to applying justice can be considered an encouragement to commit a crime. Besides, defense by insanity means that the guilty person is saying that they are not suitable to live in society. As such, the best the insanity plea should do is separate the guilty who are healthy from the guilty who are insane. Otherwise, all the other punishments such as incarceration for the rest of one’s life should be done.