Understanding Insanity Defense and its Components (Essay Sample)

Student's Name
Professor's Name
Course Number
Date
Insanity Defense
When a person is charged and tried because of a crime, the case is not always definite. Problems with the defendant tend to arise and determines the approach the defense attorney will take. To be guilty of a felony, an offender must have committed an offense and have the moral ability and intelligence to understand that their acts were incorrect and unconstitutional (Insanity Defense n.d). For that case, if the individual lacks the mental capacity, their counsel may want to utilize the insanity defense with the effect of exempting the mentally ill person from criminal liability. Nevertheless, since the insanity defense intends to separate individuals between those who are socially liable and those who are not, those with free will and those without; it has received more controversies and scrutiny than most other criminal statutes (Montaldo n.d). This paper will present a research insanity defense and its different forms in the US to shed light on these aspects.
While each state has its definition of legal insanity, a defendant is considered insane and not liable for their acts if they did not understand the nature and inappropriateness or unlawfulness of the action due to an acute psychological disorder (Montaldo n.d). However, there is more to it than just declaring someone mad. Similarly, as the court bears the burden of evidence of obtaining a guilty verdict, the defense bears the burden of proof in claiming insanity. According to research, the insanity defense was first used in judicial trials in 1581, when it was claimed that a person should not be held liable "if a natural lunatic, fool, or a madman in the period of insanity" commits a murder (Insanity Defense n.d). Since then, the insanity defense has evolved significantly, and it is likely to develop much more in the future as researchers understand more about psychogenic health.
Insanity Defense Tests
There are a variety of measures that a court may implement to assess a person's insanity. The most often utilized is the M'Naughten Standard which suggests that the individual did not know his or her conduct was incorrect because of a psychiatric defect or illness when the illegal act occurred (Math et al. 381). This principle arose from an 1843 case where the perpetrator, Daniel M'Naughten, was cleared following Brian's prime minister's attempted assassination (Math et al. 382). As a result, individuals were upset and wanted a stricter description and rules for using insanity as a defense.