Introduction
In this paper, you will read about the different insanity statutes being used in our country and a little about how they became our insanity statutes. I am going to discuss which insanity statute is being used in the state I live in and how often it is used. Since we will know how often this defense is used, you will also learn how successful it is. I will discuss the major criticisms and whether the psychologist should provide an ultimate opinion in sanity cases. Lastly, we will learn about some of the difficulties in providing appropriate psychological treatment for the mentally ill who are not seen as insane and are subsequently convicted of their charges, while incarcerated.
The Insanity Defense
During a pretrial a defendant may opt to plea “not guilty by reason of insanity” (NGRI). The insanity statutes are; The M’Naughten Rule, Model Penal Code (which is now known as the Brawner Rule). “The M’Naughten rule was developed to determine whether or not an individual accused of a crime was mentally ill at the time the crime was committed, and if they would be held criminally responsible for their “wrongdoing” (M’Naughten Rule, n.d.). The Brawner Rule “states that a defendant is not responsible for criminal conduct if he, ‘at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect, [lacks] substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality [wrongfulness] of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law’” (Greene, 2010 p 210).
The Brawner rule and M’Naughten rule are different in the ways of determining if an individual is sane or insane (mentally ill). These two rules see the definition of mentally ill a little differently. The Brawner rule includes whether an individual, can emotionally and mentally appreciate the criminal action at hand. It also does not require a total lack of appreciation for the crime from the offender, but does require a large amount of lack of appreciation to be present. The Brawner rule also includes whether the offender had knowingly and deliberately committed the act; and was the defendant able to control their actions (Greene, 2010 p211).

The insanity statues being used in California
Since I live overseas, I am going to identify the insanity statutes in the state of California. I chose California because I am getting ready to move to this state. The insanity statute is called the M’Naghten rule. This leaves the burden of proof on the defendant; this means that the defendant has to prove that he/she was insane at the time of the crime. “Insanity refers to the defendant’s mental state at the time the offense was committed (as contrasted with competence to stand trial, which refers to exclusively to the defendant’s relevant legal capacities at the time of the trial or plea bargain)” (Greene, 2010 p209).
The M’Naughten rule is based on the1843 British case of Daniel M’Naughten. Mr. M’Naughten was an unbalanced individual, who worked as a woodcutter; he was acquitted of attempting to assassinate the prime minister. In the U.S. 26 states still use the standards for the M’Naughten case; if the defendant at the time of committing the act had a defect of the mind and did not know right from wrong, may be found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) (Frontline, 2013).
How successful and often is the insanity defense used?
The majority of people believe that the insanity defense is used on more than half of all criminal cases and is often successful in most cases. They also believe that when the insanity defense is successful that the offender ends up not being punished for the crime they committed. It is surprising at how often the insanity defense is actually used and how successful it actually is in all criminal cases. “The insanity plea was entered by only 102 of 22,102 felony defendants that’s about 1 in every 200 cases, in a one-year period and was successful only once in those 102 times” (Greene, 2010 p216).
The major criticisms of the insanity defense
There have been many criticisms of the insanity defense; they range from minor to major issues. One of the criticisms of the insanity defense is “that the basis of the cognitive focus is not broad enough and does not allow for the motivation of the act or other influences affecting the control of behavior to be considered as a factor” (Greene, 2010 p210). Another criticism is from the American people, saying that the insanity defense is used too often and that the offenders almost always do not get punished. It is said that “Insanity cannot be reliably and validly assessed and that the insanity defense relies too much on psychiatric testimony” (Greene, 2010 p225).
The psychologists’ ultimate opinion in sanity cases, should or should not be allowed?
I do not believe that the psychologist should be allowed to provide an ultimate opinion in sanity cases. I say this because the psychologist goals are much different than that of the legal system. The psychologists’ opinion may have too much effect on the outcome of the jury’s decision. The psychologist should only be allowed to provide information on the cases that does not involve an opinion. “The Ultimate Issue Rule holds that an expert witness is not permitted to render an opinion on the ultimate issue in the case (e.g., whether a defendant was "insane"), because, inter alia, this would invade the province of the jury” (Goldstein, n.d. p269).
Difficulties in providing appropriate psychological treatment for the mentally ill who are not seen as insane and are subsequently convicted of their charges, while incarcerated.
Some of the difficulties in providing appropriate psychological treatment for the mentally ill when they are incarcerated is that the prison guards are not trained to properly handle the mentally ill when they have a breakdown. Another difficulty is that the mentally ill inmate maybe put in danger or put other inmates/ prison guards in danger. The mentally ill would not fully benefit from psychological sessions taken in a prison.
Conclusion
Although most people believe that the insanity defense is used often, is simple and successful in many cases; it is not. The insanity defense is one of the least used defenses and one of the most difficult defenses to prove. To the contrary of what people believe when the defense is actually used, these offenders actually receive longer periods of incarceration and have to do a number of evaluations before the possibility of parole, if at all possible.

References:
Frontline. (2013). A Crime of Insanity: The Insanity Defense. Retrieved August 14, 2013 from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/crime/trial/faqs.html
Greene, E., Heilbrun. (2010). Psychology and the Legal System (7th ed.). Belmont, CA.: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning Pp. 209-211, 216, 225
Goldstein, R. L. (n.d.). The Psychiatrist’s Guide to Right and Wrong: Part IV: The Insanity Defense and the Ultimate Issue Rule. P269. Retrieved August 20, 2013 from http://www.jaapl.org/content/17/3/269.full.pdf
M’Naughten Rule. (n.d.). West’s Encyclopedia of American Law: M’Naughten Rule. (2nd ed.). Retrieved August 17, 2013 from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/M’Naughten+Rule