5-6 Persuasive Essay Draft
5-6 Persuasive Essay Draft
Even though insanity defense is seldom used in criminal prosecutions, it is still a controversial
topic in the legal system. After a defendant in a high-profile case is declared not guilty by reason
of insanity, legislators and the public community often dispute the necessity for the defense. For
example, there was a public uproar when John Hinkley successfully utilized the defense after
shooting President Ronald Regan only to impress actor Jodie Foster. The necessity for the
insanity defense has been disputed by both legal and medical professionals. Those who want to
conserve it should keep in mind that forty-eight of the Fifty states still have some form of
insanity defense. Although some people may object to the Insanity defense, this defense is a
necessity to adequately punish a clinically mentally ill person, to ensure the safety of the public,
and abolishing the insanity defense is unconstitutional.
The insanity defense was created to defend clinically mentally ill individuals who do not know
right from wrong. According to the McNaughten rule, the accused must demonstrate that they
did not comprehend what they were doing or were unaware that their acts were predicated.
According to the Model Penal Code, defendants are not accountable for illegal action if they are
unable to appreciate the criminality of what they did or are unable to follow the law owing to
1
mental illness. (2019, CQ Researcher) (Lyons, 2019) This defense is required to properly punish
the accused after the individual is proven to be clinically mentally ill, and they are then and only
then given the opportunity to claim insanity. To maintain the public’s safety, it is essential to
establish a defense against insanity. When dealing with those suffering from mental illnesses, a
balance must be struck between administering justice and safeguarding the public. A judgment of
insanity does not exclude legal repercussions, but it may influence how the law is executed. The
elimination of the insanity defense would be a violation of the Constitution. The 14th
Amendment protects the right to counsel and due process. The Supreme Court overturned a state
Supreme Court judgment that totally removed the insanity defense. According to the Supreme
Court, “due process of law requires some kind of insanity defense” (Harrison, 2015). “The
Insanity Argument Is Necessary and Moral,” a 2016 essay, contends that states that have
abandoned the insanity defense have replaced it with verdicts for “guilty but mentally ill”
(GBMI). A GBMI judgment ensures that the offender accepts responsibility for their actions
while simultaneously recognizing the defendant’s mental illness. Despite this, we continue to
punish them in the same manner that we would punish a mentally ill person. We often punish
them in addition to the system designed to punish them because we condemn them and impose
the public stigma that I previously stated. Adopting any conclusion other than insanity is futile
since it is the only one that results in a penalty for the mentally ill. To abolish the insanity
defense would be a violation of the Constitution. The 14th Amendment guarantees the right to
legal counsel and due process. The Supreme Court overturned seven state Supreme Court rulings
that had completely removed the insanity defense. According to the Supreme Court’s view, “due
process of law involves some form of development of an insanity defense” (Harrison, 2015).
According to “The Insanity Argument Is Necessary and Moral,” 2016, states that have removed
the insanity defense have replaced it with findings such as “guilty but mentally ill” (GBMI)
verdicts. A GBMI judgment ensures that the offender accepts responsibility for their actions
while simultaneously recognizing the defendant’s mental illness. Despite this, we continue to
punish them in the same manner that we would punish a mentally healthy person. We often
punish them in addition to the system designed to punish them, since we condemn them and
impose society’s bad view on them. According to the conclusions of an eight-state study, just one
percent of criminals in the United States today will attempt to utilize the insanity defense. Fifty
percent of the incidents were classed as violent crimes, with just 7.5 percent classified as murder
cases (Public Broadcasting Service, n.d.). To put it another way, if we looked at studies on 1,000
1
murder cases, only 75% of those instances would conclude that the culprit was mad. In
conclusion, the insanity defense must be allowed in our judicial system because it ensures that
the legally ill are treated appropriately, the mental disorder only worsens while a person is
confined, and removing the ability to enter a plea of insanity would be unconstitutional. To fight
the cultural bias that surrounds the use of the insanity plea, it is critical that we shine light on the
actual nature of the insanity defense. Individuals should not use it to evade accepting
responsibility for their conduct. A plea of insanity will result in its own set of consequences,
including the possibility of conditional release, which the court will maintain. It is critical that
we, as a culture, prioritize the mental health of not just ourselves, but also our families,
neighbors, and colleagues. Do we want to live in a town that just cares about public safety
numbers, or do we want to live in a community that cares about its people and makes sure we get
the help we need when we need it? That is the main point made by supporters of the insanity
defense. When assessing the proper penalty for a person, their mental health, along with all other
aspects of the crime, should be addressed. We can’t keep pointing fingers at others while
ignoring the cause of the issue. Only then will we be able to achieve meaningful progress and
make the world a better place for those around us.
References:
The Insanity Defense. (2019). CQ Researcher by CQ Press, 1–18. https://library- cqpress-
com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/cqresearcher/ document.php?id=cqresrre2019101100 Public Broadcasting
Service. (n.d.). A Crime of Insanity – Insanity on Trial | FRONTLINE. PBS.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/crime/trial/faqs.html. Wendzel, B. (2020).
NOT GUILTY, YET CONTINUOUSLY CONFINED: REFORMING THE INSANITY
DEFENSE. American Criminal Law Review, 57(2), 391+.
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A619632333/OVIC?u=nhc_main&sid=bookmark-
OVIC&xid=23e6f978.
You Need a Professional Writer To Work On Your Paper?
Have any Assignment?
Talk to us
Get High Quality Work
Original Work
Get it before your deadine
Place your Order
