se sense of security that society receives bykeeping mentally ill criminals in confinement. Mental hospitals are capable of reformingthe mentally ill, but confinement does not guarantee that the person will be cured. Whenconfinement is too long to fit the crime or too short to do any good, it becomes unjustwhether it is in a prison or a hospital (2). The whole reason behind the insanity defense is to make society feel protected, but itdoes not make the defense the perfect solution. Throughout history there have been manyways of dealing with mentally ill people who commit crimes. There are several methodsfor determining legal insanity; such as the MNaghten rule, the "product" test, and theirresistible impulse test. These methods serve only as guidelines, and are not consideredcompletely capable of uncovering what goes on in the minds of alleged criminals. Thefield of abnormal psychology has presented us with six perspectives on the causes ofmaladaptive (insane) behavior, two of which have been directly linked to individual cases. Finally, there are many misconceptions and injustices surrounding the defense. I think it isimpossible to know exactly what someone else is really thinking or feeling, and thatcommitting a crime is wrong no matter what the perpetrator claims his or her mental statewas. I do believe the insanity defense should remain in action, because mentally ill felonsdo require some special treatment as opposed to regular felons. It may cause a lot ofproblems and controversy, but at the same time it allows mentally ill individuals the optionof a fair trial. If a defendant is found NGRI or guilty but mentally ill, I think that he orshe should be placed in a mental hospital instead of being released without treatment. Ifthe defendant recovers, then I think he or she should serve out the rest of his or hersentence in a prison. If these hospital environments are improperly operated and/or lackfunding, they will no...
