Reference no: EM133371790

The insanity defense is so complex yet simple. Simply put, is the person so mentally ill that their actions are not their own fault, however, how do we define mental illness, and to what standard should its severity allow someone to not face the full extent of the law? Depression is a mental illness, yet if a severely depressed person were to commit homicide they would be under much more scrutiny than a person that has schizophrenia who committed the same crime. They both suffer from a mental illness yet they are not held to the same standards. In addition to this, every day our understanding of the human brain is constantly evolving. Personally, I understand and support efforts that make it more difficult to use the insanity defense. The rape of a child is "crazy" to any person with humanity but is that the craziness of an ill person or the evil in a "sane" person. When the defense is able to prove the insanity of their client then we know that the proper punishment will be served to that individual, but if they fail, then that individual will also get the full extent of their punishment. The insanity defense is a lighter sentence than those given to the general offender, making it a more desirable punishment. With insanity defenses becoming easier to obtain, justice isn't being served to the victims of these criminals.