(Siegel, Larry J. 2001) .
In an interesting note to the debate and the controversy of this proverbial throwing a "monkey wrench" into the wheels of justice, critics of the defense maintain that inquiry to a defendant's psychological makeup is inappropriate at trial stage; they would prefer the issue be brought up at the sentencing stage, after guilt has been determined. (Siegel, Larry J. 2001) .
.
Of the criminals both acquitted and convicted using the insanity defense, a good number have shown conclusive evidence of recidivism. Many dangerous persons are allowed to return to the streets and many non-dangerous persons are forced into facilities due to an insanity plea adding further confusion and injustice within both. Some cases of individuals who were found not guilty by reason of insanity who only have mild personality disturbances are incarcerated as mental patients far longer than they would have been imprisoned. This is more confusion. (Siegel, Larry J. 2001) Advocates of the insanity defense say that it serves a unique purpose. Most successful insanity verdicts result in the defendant being committed to a mental institution until he or she has recovered. The general assumption is that the insanity defense makes it impossible to single out special treatment for criminals who would otherwise rot in prison undiagnosed. (Wrobleski, Henry M. and Hess, Karen M. 2000).
Taking all the views from the opposition and the advocates I come to a conclusion that improvement must be taken to help sort this problem and help the insanity defense work for the truly insane. I am for the insanity defense if the individual is truly insane and cannot distinguish right from wrong, black from white, reality from fantasy. I am not for the insanity defense in cases where the individual are in touch with reality but has a reactive impulse to break the law such as seen with serial murderers. .
Similarly, I am against temporary insanity.
