[ad_1]
The insanity defense is used in court to excuse a defendant from punishment for a crime, but what constitutes a valid defense varies by jurisdiction. Some believe it is used to justify criminal activity, while others believe it is necessary for those who cannot distinguish between right and wrong. Those found not guilty by reason of insanity may undergo psychiatric treatment and are held in mental institutions until they are no longer a threat. A distinction is made between an insane defendant and one with a mental illness.
An insanity defense is a strategy used in court to excuse a defendant from being punished for committing a crime. What constitutes a valid version of this type of defense is not the same in all jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions do not require the defendant to repent of committing the crime to be exempt from liability. Most, if not all, jurisdictions require the defendant to be insane at the time of the crime, as opposed to at the time of the trial.
Insanity Defense is available in most states in the United States and, to varying degrees, in many other countries as well. In the United States, Idaho, Kansas, Montana and Utah do not recognize this defense. Of those states that allow it, the level of proof required to be valid varies. In federal courts, the defendant must prove insanity with clear and convincing evidence. In some state courts, the defendant must prove insanity by a preponderance of evidence, while other state courts require the plaintiff to disprove insanity beyond a reasonable doubt.
The idea behind the insanity defense is essentially that an individual deserves punishment for a crime only if they are able to tell the difference between right and wrong. Since an insane person is believed to be incapable of making sensible decisions, many believe such defendants should not be responsible for their crimes.
The Insanity Defense is not without adversaries. Some individuals believe it is often used to excuse or justify a criminal activity. They believe it is too often employed by those who have willfully broken the law and seek to escape punishment by claiming insanity.
Typically, a person found not guilty by reason of insanity is required to undergo psychiatric evaluation and treatment. However, in cases of temporary mental illness, such treatment may not be mandatory. Often those acquitted for insanity are sent to asylums for treatment.
Unlike those convicted of felonies, individuals who have been found to be insane are usually not relegated to institutions for a specific amount of time. Instead, they are held in mental institutions until those in authority conclude they are no longer a threat to themselves or others. Often those making such decisions choose to err on the side of caution, and individuals acquitted of insanity can spend a good deal of time in psychiatric institutions. In some cases, such defendants may even spend more time in mental institutions than they would have spent in prison had they been convicted.
In the United States, a distinction is usually made between an insane defendant and a defendant suffering from a mental illness. Generally, it is believed that a person can be mentally ill, but still sane. As such, a person with a recognized mental illness may not be able to successfully use an insanity defense. The justice system can still hold such a defendant accountable, issuing a guilty but insane, or guilty but insane judgment.
