Smiling woman judge holding gavel to bang on sounding block in studio

The Insanity Defense Should Be Outlawed

The insanity defense, which could also be referred to as the mental disorder defense, is a defense by excuse in criminal trials arguing that the defendant should not be held responsible for their actions due to a psychiatric disease or disorder. This means the person gets an exemption from full criminal punishment for their actions on such grounds.

It’s important to remember that insanity is not a medical or psychiatric term. It is a legal term. So to address the proposition here, Should the insanity defense be abolished? Well, of course it should outlawed, because criminal behavior cannot be the product of a legal term, a legal and social fiction. Insanity can mean either of two things. First, it can refer to a brain disease, and secondly, to misbehavior. Brain disease does not evoke criminal acts. Infections, trauma, stroke, seizures, and tumors do not cause criminal acts. Patients with any form of brain disease may or may not commit crime, just like any other person. In terms of behavior, insanity is not a real disease, and it cannot be judge medically. It’s usually determined after a person commits a crime, usually if something disrupts the normal social pattern of life.

Even though some U.S. states have begun to ban the use of the insanity defense, it is very essential that this law, which has freed hundreds of guilty criminals across the world, be outlaw once and for all! Criminals are still criminals no matter their mental state. Criminals, “insane” or not, still committed the crime at the end of the day and deserve punishment. After all, insanity, among many other concepts used in court, is completely subjective. If a criminal is freed under the claim of insanity, there is reasonable chance that such person will commit the same crime again or do something worse.

Laws are actually meant to protect the public, but by freeing criminals on the basis of insanity defense, life and property of the public is at stake and the aim of protecting the public is defeated. One amazing thing in any insanity involved trial is that the defense psychiatrist always says the accused is insane, and the prosecution psychiatrist always says he’s sane. This happened invariably, in 100 percent of the cases, thus far exceeding the laws of chance, and it shows how manipulative and subjective insanity defense can be. The insanity defense can be manipulated by either side of the case to serve their ends. That’s what is called being biased. This is especially true for the defense.

It is also arguable that those with the capacity to commit crimes are capable of distinguishing the severity and immorality of the crimes. For example, do the insane have “no criminal intent”, when they spent months planning on shooting, loading their apartment with explosives, disguising themselves, then go on a shooting spree in a crowded location? Of course not! This is something which even some of the so called sane people cannot execute perfectly. Whosoever is able to do this, sane or insane (as the lawyer might claim) should be rightly and justly punished. So to conclude this, it is quite clear that insanity defense is subjective and manipulative and it is used to free criminals who are supposed to be punished for the crime they committed, and it should be outlawed!