Mental health is a complex and controversial issue in the American criminal justice system. According to the M’Naughten Rule, individuals cannot be criminally responsible if they were mentally incapacitated at the time of the offense. However, this defense is rarely successful and depends on the individual's particular circumstances. This paper aims to determine whether the insanity defense should be reformed or abolished in the United States.

Opponents of the insanity defense argue that severe punishment is necessary for those who commit heinous crimes, such as homicide or rape, regardless of their mental state. On the other hand, some people argue that those with mental health problems should be sent to a mental institution for treatment. While I am unsure about this topic since differentiating the “knowing” and “not knowing” capacity of an insane person is challenging, I believe the insanity defense should not be abolished. This defense is crucial because some people do experience severe mental disorders. The insanity defense ensures that victims receive the justice they deserve, and defendants receive the rehabilitation they require.

Explaining the M’Naughten Rule, Hartunian (2020) reveals the significance of the two-prong test required to claim the insanity defense. First, the defendant must not understand the physical element of their crime, such as the use of a gun resulting in death. Second, the defendant must not differentiate between what is legally or morally right or wrong. It is essential to note that merely having a mental illness is not enough for the legal determination of the outcome. The offender must be diagnosed with a mental disorder by a doctor and be mentally incapable of understanding right from wrong at the time of the crime.

Hartunian (2020) clarifies that the insanity test helps protect the mentally ill from unjust punishment and ensures they receive proper treatment to reintegrate into society. McFatter (1982) states that the five purposes of punishment are incapacitation, retribution, rehabilitation, general deterrence, and specific deterrence. Focus on mental illness cases eliminate general/specific deterrence, but the other three remain relevant. If the overall purpose of the legal system is to rehabilitate prisoners, offenders with a mental disorder must receive medical treatment in a medical setting, and not be sent to prison. Incapacitation can occur in a medical facility, and retribution “just deserts” can still be followed if the offender completes their full sentence. Retribution can vary depending on the victim, who may feel that a mental institution for the defendant is too lenient and may prefer seeing them in prison.

One issue with the insanity test is the lack of clarity regarding how much knowledge a mentally ill person should have during the time of their acts. Determining whether a defendant is minimally or fully aware of the circumstances is challenging. Clarity is also needed regarding the definition of legally and morally wrong. Doctors cannot necessarily answer these questions, and no one can attest to how much a person truly understands. A doctor can only attest to the defendant's mental state.

In conclusion, the insanity defense is critical for individuals suffering from severe mental disorders. Reforming or abolishing this defense could be detrimental to their rehabilitation and reintegration into society. The legal system must continue to ensure the proper treatment of mentally ill offenders and ensure that victims receive the justice they deserve.

In response to the challenges posed by the insanity defense, experts have proposed several reforms that could improve the system. Borum (1999) suggests that any successful reforms must be backed by empirical evidence, though limited research exists on the effectiveness of such reforms. Key reform suggestions may include procedural changes, adjustments to the burden of proof, and expert testimony, among others (p. 379).

One potential area for reform is in the revision of jury instructions. Spohn (2012) notes that jurors play a crucial role in determining the outcome of a case, and that the insanity defense can be particularly difficult for them to understand. Research suggests that jurors' understanding of insanity defense standards ranges from 31% to 40%, underscoring the need for clearer instructions (Borum, 1999). Because jurors' perspectives on the defense are central to its success, inadequate comprehension may lead to incorrect application of the law (as cited in Ogloff, 1991).

Another area of potential reform is in the substantive test of insanity. Borum (1999) suggests that adopting the ALI (American Law Institute) Model Penal Code standard instead of the M'Naughten standard could lead to more acquittals based on insanity. The ALI standard requires that a defendant claiming not guilty by reason of insanity be unable to comprehend the difference between right and wrong, which corresponds to the irresistible impulse component of the M'Naughten rule (PBS, n.d.).

Experts have also debated reforming the role of mental health professionals in providing expert testimony. Borum (1999) suggests that changes to the Federal Rules of Evidence, such as the implementation of Evidence Rule 704(B), may be needed to address concerns about expert testimony by psychologists regarding the sanity of a defendant (p. 381). Finally, Borum (1999) considers potential reform of the burden of persuasion in insanity cases and the standard of proof, advocating for a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard to ensure efficiency and clarity in legal proceedings (p. 381).

Despite these reforms, some experts have suggested the outright abolition of the insanity defense in all 50 states, as has already been done in several states. Montana, Idaho, Utah, Nevada, and Kansas have all eliminated the option of the insanity defense, while other states such as Louisiana, Mississippi, and Washington have attempted to do so but have encountered constitutional hurdles. However, experts recognize that issues of mental illness in criminal proceedings remain complex, and the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet addressed the question of whether states should be required to provide an insanity defense option for defendants with mental illness (Borum, 1999).

Ultimately, the goal of any reform or abolition effort is to ensure a fair and just legal system, though there are varying opinions on whether the insanity defense serves that purpose. While some argue that it does not harm the legal system greatly, there is room for improvement in ensuring that the defense serves those who most need it. As research and legal cases continue to illuminate the challenges posed by the insanity defense, experts and policymakers will need to work together to create an effective and efficient legal system that truly promotes justice.

The article titled "Abolition of the Insanity Defense Violates Due Process" by Morse and Bonnie (2013) argues that getting rid of the insanity defense violates due process. The authors suggest that removing the defense takes away an essential aspect of the criminal justice system that offers protection for those who experience mental illnesses. By not recognizing the insanity defense, they argue that individuals who are not fully aware of their actions could face unfair punishment.

The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) also examined the concept of insanity in the legal system in an article titled "A Crime Of Insanity - Insanity On Trial | FRONTLINE." The article discusses the A.L.I. test and how it provided a standard for the legal system's definition of insanity. The article suggests that the A.L.I. test raised concerns about the fairness of the legal system because it did not account for an individual's specific mental state.

In "Courts: A Text/Reader" (2012), Spohn and Hemmens examine how courts handle cases involving insanity. The authors discuss how court decisions on insanity and the resulting consequences can vary depending on the court and jurisdiction.

Finally, the scholarly article by Ward (1961) titled "The M'Naghten Rule: A Re-evaluation" provides insight into the eponymous rule for determining insanity. The author argues that the M'Naghten Rule has limitations due to its strict requirements for determining insanity. The article suggests that an alternative framework should be considered to account for the complexities of mental illness in criminal cases.