The thing about criminal behavior is those that who commit crimes, often do not want to be held to account for those crimes – therefore, not too surprisingly and in consideration that lawyers can be quite clever, at some point in jurisprudence, we find that an innovative defense for a crime having been committed, was the insanity defense, best defined as being germane to the case when the perpetrator committing a given crime, lacked the mental capacity to comprehend the nature of the act that they had committed, through an incapacity of their mind to correctly process and perceive reality.
While it is true that not all States permit the insanity defense, it is also true that the vast majority of States do, as well as the fact that on the Federal level, the insanity defense is also valid. Of course, in our jurisprudence, some specific conditions must be met for an insanity defense to be sanctioned, of which, when those conditions are met, then another avenue is created, in which, depending upon circumstances, could amount to the defendant being found not guilty by reason of insanity, or if the defendant is found insane to thereby be not competent to stand trial, as well as other various exceptions.
Look, it has to be said, when it comes to a criminal trial, that trial should be exclusive as to whether or not a crime has been committed, and in regards to the defendant’s state of mind, that should only be addressed when it comes to the sentencing aspect of the case. In other words, a trial should determine the guilt or innocence of the person so accused, and if there appears to be a question as to the mental capacity of the now guilty party, that should be a separate process, which should only determine whether or not the guilty party spends their incarceration in a prison or in a mental facility. What should not ever happen though, as has happened, is those that are deemed insane, and at some future point, but well before what the crime would have called for in regards to incarceration time, are released from that mental facility, for they have now been “cured.”
Indeed, when jurisprudence determines that those who lack mental capacity or are considered to be insane should be treated differently in a court of law, as compared to everybody else, then we do not have equality under the law, but rather some people are treated differently with the attendant outcome being different, which isn’t fair. The point of a criminal trial should be to ascertain guilt through a jury of one’s peers, and after that has been determined, the mental capacity, or the lack thereof, can be debated. As it stands, there are plenty of people that aren’t really right in their head or in their thinking, but when their actions, are criminal and harm the other, then they should fairly face the consequences of that action, and to the degree that our institutions can help alleviate mental illnesses, so much the better, but this should only be in conjunction with the penalty for a criminal action being fairly paid.