The insanity plea is one of the most debated topics in history. The argument about the insanity plea has attracted both support and criticism on whether it should be abolished. In Chapter 7, Samuel Walker’s “Sense and Nonsense about Crime and Drugs: A Policy Guide” book discusses the controversial issue by giving both sides of the argument (Walker, 1994). A defendant who claims insanity might use this defense to demonstrate that they acted irrationally because of mental illness. Despite the argument that an insanity plea should not be abolished because it is part of the legal process, some people oppose it since it may be overused and can prevent mentally ill people from seeking treatment.
The main argument against an insanity plea is that many people who are not mentally ill may use it to get out of jail for free. Some offenders may falsely claim insanity in order to avoid jail time. The insanity defense is criticized as a legal loophole letting offenders avoid punishment (Walker, 1994). Also, the insanity defense is time-consuming and expensive since it requires expert witnesses and mental exams.
There is also concern that removing the insanity defense could deter those with mental health issues from getting help. Further, those with mental illness may hesitate to seek treatment out of fear of repercussions. More criminal acts may be performed by those who may have benefited from mental health treatment if this trend continues. The court may seek a psychiatrist’s opinion to determine whether a defendant’s inability to develop the requisite intent due to a mental disease mitigates the defendant’s legal responsibility (Walker, 1994). Also, on compulsory terms, the detainees deny being in the normal range of emotions.
However, some individuals think the insanity defense is part of the justice system that, if abolished, may interfere with the trial process. The insanity plea protects mentally ill people from being sentenced as other normal people (Walker, 1994). Because people with mental illness lack the cognitive capacity to form the requisite guilty intent, the law does not hold them criminally responsible. People with mental illness who commit crimes may face harsher penalties than necessary without the insanity defense.
Therefore, the abolition of the insanity plea is one of the most complex issues that are difficult to find consensus. Proponents argue that recognizing the importance of mental illness in criminal behavior, the insanity plea is an integral aspect of the criminal justice system. Conversely, others think the insanity defense can be easily misused to evade justice. Thus, people need to make much consideration before deciding on an insanity plea. The insanity defense creates a thin line between justice and individual rights. Revision of the requirements for the insanity defense might be one answer; this would safeguard people who are not accountable for their acts due to mental illness while making it more difficult to utilize as a loophole. Hence, one should weigh the rights of the accused and the victims while judging an insanity plea to ensure justice prevail.
References
Walker, S. (1994). Sense and nonsense about crime and drugs: A policy guide (p. 29). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
write