In several legal systems, the criminal charge needs both an immoral act as well as a guilty state of mind since one of them is not sufficient to judge someone. For instance, an individual judged to be insane is not normally handled a similar way as a non-insane individual who committed an equal offense act. The processes, elements, and conditions of utilizing insanity to get out of prison differ extensively across jurisdictions.
According to Meynen, other states have eliminated the utilize of the insanity defense while some states still have and use it to judge if a defendant can be released or judged according to his/her offenses. This makes the insanity defense one of the greatest controversial defenses in many state courtrooms as the defendants can attempt to lie so that they find their way out of the prison or sent to a short time sentence.
I do agree with the notion that defendants with some mental health issues should be allowed to use the insanity defense as a way of getting out of prison for an alleged crime because insanity defense is framed not to safeguard the mentally ill individuals or their actions they commit, but to defend the incapable individual who does not understand what is right and wrong at that moment he/she commits the offense. Therefore, one must be more conscious of how mental illness may skew behaviors and instead of taking these mental disorderly people to jail, we must take them to mental health facilities for the treatment they require.
Furthermore, it is not ethical to not allow a defendant having mental disorder get out of prison because you will be violating his/her human rights as it is unfair to hold a mental disorder person responsible for the offenses he/she committed without knowing. Every country advocates for equal rights, treatment and justice for citizens, it is the responsibility of the court to realize the use of insanity defend as the defendant could have committed the action due to temporally mental illness but not planned thus they must not be blamed or held responsible.
Additionally, mental illness happens to be of various categories and may affect an individual in different forms causing short or long term effects. The best way to comprehend the insanity defense is to put yourself in the position of the defendant because other individuals who utilize the defense has the main cause for the actions he/she performed as they are not born murders or criminals. For instance, Lorena Bobbitt was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder when in June 1993, disgracefully chopped off her partner’s penis using a kitchen knife and pleaded self-defense, arguing that her actions were due to her partner John, previous behavior as he raped and abused her for several years.
Moreover, I believe that demons are real and it is true to consider that they are capable to communicate with individuals and even influence individuals to perform evil actions. These actions should be the advantages of taking or holding one in prison because they did not have motives to do them. Besides that most individuals who plead not guilty by reason of insanity don’t go just free like that, they are institutionalized in mental health facilities more than even years they could be sentenced to jail, where the community is still protected from their harms.
In conclusion, defendants should be allowed to use the insanity defense as a way of getting out of prison for an alleged crime because it will violate the human rights of mentally ill people. If individuals have a diverse mental illness, they are actually not in full control of their actions at that particular time and it will be unfair to punish them. The public on the opposition side considers that they are just set free but in reality, they are being helped to be sent to a mental hospital to acquire treatment they require and deserve. Also, the government should intervene and build more mental hospital infrastructures where they can be treated rather than convicting which imply barrier to medical treatment.
