The insanity plea defense is a criminal defendant that is found to have been legally insane when they committed a crime. They can be found not guilty because of their insanity. In some cases they can be found guilty but will serve less punishment because of their mental impairment. If someone claims to be legally insane, the courts can test them to see if it is true. They have 4 rules to determine insanity. The “M” noghten rule; that the defendant either did not understand what they did , or failed to distinguish right from wrong because of a “disease of mind”. The “irresistible impulse” test; result of a mental disease the defendant was unable to control and has impulse , which lead to a criminal act. The “durham” rule ; regardless of the clinical diagnosis the defendants “mental defect” resulted in a criminal act. The “Model penal code” Test for legal insanity; because of the diagnosed mental defect the defendant either failed to understand the criminality of their acts , or …show more content…
Professor Szasz is against the insanity defense and bases his knowledge on a conceptual critique , he states “First, to a brain disease, and I will say something about that; and secondly, to misbehavior. Well, disease, brain disease, does not cause criminal acts. Epilepsy as a brain disease doe s not cause criminal acts.” This is evidence showing that having a brain disease or mental issue does not lead to doing criminal activity. Going forward with the debate one of professors Szasz teammates,Jeffrey A. Schaler an Adjunct Professor, debates that, “It's important too to remember that insanity is not a medical, psychiatric term. It is a legal term…well, of course it should abolished, because criminal behavior cannot be the product of a legal term.” This deposition explains that infinity is not a medical term, so it should not be used as an excuse for committing a