Criminal Insane Defense The insanity defense has been a topic of much controversy because of its perceived means of excusing someone from a crime that has been committed. Although much is perceived of the insanity defense as a way to avoid accountability, it is actually the least used defense strategy because of its extreme difficulty is proving it (Knoll & Resnick, 2008). Every individual is different, but someone trying to plead criminally insane in current times would have to extreme case of insanity visibility and an immense amount of proof to demonstrate their case for not being guilty by reason of insanity. In actuality, of all the cases that enter the insanity plea, only 1% of those cases get the plea granted (PBS 2011). This puts into perspective not only the actual effectiveness of this plea, but also the hesitation that comes with actually granting this to any offender. In order for an offender to get away with the insanity defense, they would have to have been unstable at the time of the actual crime, which in itself brings much controversy.

One of the major criticisms of the insanity defense is that it is used as a way to not find a person accountable for the crimes that they have committed (Mackay et al. 2006). It is not seen as a just punishment for the crime that has been committed. Given that a person was able to commit a crime, insane or not, they should be able to get the appropriate punishment for such crime committed. Many people also disagree with the implementation...

A crime is a crime and whether or not a person was sane enough to commit it, should not be excusable by avoiding actual prison time.
Another criticism is the fact that there is no actual physical evidence or legitimate proof that a person is actually insane (Knoll & Resnick 2008). Everything is based on judgments of those deemed to be professionals, but at the end of the day, anyone could feign mental illness (or so it is perceived that way). The insanity defense is seen as a defense lawyer's way of getting their client out of jail and into what they perceive as being a better alternative to prison, going to a forensic psychiatric hospital. The controversy surrounds the perceived easiness in pretending to be mentally ill and easily getting away with it. The reality is far from that, but it can be argued that if a person really wants to avoid being properly punished for the crime that they have committed, a fake insanity plea could be partitioned.

The provisions to find someone criminally insane can vary from case to case. As mentioned previously, it is very hard to get relieved of a crime because of insanity, but if an offender is, they have to fit specific criteria that is very hard to prove to begin with. Pleading insane could be seen as a Catch 22. If someone says that they were insane at the time that the judged crime was committed, then they are sane enough to realize that they were insane.…