The insanity defense does not remove the responsibility of a criminal act from the perpetrator, instead it is a criminal defense arguing that at the time the act was committed “the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of the acts” (Legal, 2000, 1). Nonetheless, there are many who are opposed to the insanity defense as a form of criminal defense because they view it as a means whereby the defendant can escape the consequences of his or her actions. The underlying premise that excuses the defendant under the insanity defense is willful intent. Most offenses must show willful intent in order to be successful in the prosecution of a defendant. If the defendant is determined to have been insane at the time the acts were committed, it is almost impossible for the offense to show willful intent. The wording of many state laws basically defines insanity as an inability to appreciate the criminal nature of one’s acts. For example, the Kentucky law on insanity reads “Insanity means that, as a result of mental condition, [one lacks] substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of one’s conduct or to conform one’s conduct to the requirements of law” (Drogin and Barrett, 1998, 1). The vague and often ambiguous criteria used to label someone insane, even among psychiatric professionals, leads to the successful use of the insanity defense in many cases where professionals for the prosecution disagree regarding the defendant’s sanity. The following analysis will explore various issues and perspectives on the insanity defense, including case examples, in order to argue that this type of criminal defense should NOT be abolished.
The insanity defense is often viewed with scorn by many involved in the justice system and its impact, like prosecutors, psychiatric professionals, family members and friends of the victim(s), and o...