When the insanity defense is implanted in a trial the legal definition will almost always vary, depending on which rule the lawyer wants to adopt. Both the defense and the prosecution will have their own psychiatrists trying to prove their case. In the end the jury will have to decide which side was the most believable. How is it possible for the jury to decide whether or not the defendant is sane or insane? Professionals do not even agree on the meaning of mental illness. The jury will have to take the testimony that has been manipulated by lawyers and make their own conclusion.

The law of insanity involves the concepts of mens rea and punishments, as does the criminal law in general. Insanity is a legal concept, not a medical concept, and insanity is defined within the context of an adversary system where psychiatrists and lawyers battle one another over the meaning of terms such as “right and wrong” and “ability to control one’s behavior”. Mental illness is defined by talking to people or by giving them written tests, and there is no agreement among psychiatrists as to the meaning of this illness. The psychoanalyst has not been successful in treating or predicting mental illness. The psychoanalyst has never established a casual relationship between mental illness and criminal behavior. The insanity defense would require both a mental illness and a relationship between the illness and the criminal behavior, neither of which could be scientifically established. Many dangerous persons are forced into facilities due to an insanity plea adding further confusion and injustice within both the legal and medical systems. In my opinion the insanity defense is impossible to maintain on the basis of rules such as the M’Naghten rule. The insanity defense is impractical in its’ present usage. In my opinion, anyone that commits a crime bad enough to warrant the death penalty or life imprisonment has to be insane. For instance any crime committed against a child, who is helpless to protect himself, is insane. However, that person may be released back to society, but I believe that the person should not be released on the “Insanity Defense” just because of the jury or judge thinks he has mental problems. The person should be pentialized as bad as his or her actions or maybe worst and not get away with using the insanity defense. The way to fix this problem is to cover-up all the loopholes available to dangerous people. The insanity defense is used too casually to protect the criminal. Until there comes a way to prove insanity, as applied to criminal activity, it should be

Some topics in this essay:
Criminally Insane, Durham Rule, Insanity Defense, Thomas Szasz, Irresistible Impulse, Rule M’Naghten, insanity defense, mental illness, mens rea, crime committed, guilty reason, m’naghten rule, irresistible impulse, impulse test, irresistible impulse test, mens rea requirement, person insanity defense, determine mental, insanity mental, illness criminal behavior, mental illness myth,