Pleading Insanity in a Court of Law
Now this is something I have often wondered about.
In the UK (where I live) if a defendant pleads insanity they will undergo a mental examination to verify their claim. If successful they can avoid prison and be transferred to hospital, until deemed fit to re-enter society. As far as I know, in the US the law is slightly different; a pleading of insanity simply qualifies for a ruling of 'diminished responsibility' along with other factors put to the jury. The plead itself, even if accepted and proved, has very different results.
However, does this deliver the justice it intends?
The definition of 'insane' changes from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Discounting false claims to insanity, what is it that makes someone not responsible for what they do?
If someone was drunk at the time of the crime (or under the influence of drugs) the judge will be no more lenient. In fact, is our definition of 'insane' even a valid one?
If someone commits rape or murder for their highly deviant sexual preferences and practices why aren't they declared simply mad? After all, they have a very abnormal way of thinking which they have no control over.
Now there are various details of the law concerning insanity which any of you can read up on here. However, it is the fundamental question that I would like to put to you : can mental health, or for that matter anything else, take away the responsibility for a terrible crime? If so, where do you draw the line?