s the trial and let the defendant enter a mental hospital. On the other hand, if the defendant has no serious signs of mental illness, the defense attorneys will not attempt an insanity defense. This is because they know the juries are reluctant to accept it. Basically, the only way for a lawyer to prove his client’s insanity is to try to project what his client was thinking (or not thinking) at the time that the felony was committed. This is best done by listening to the testimonies of different psychologists and psychiatrists who are called “expert witnesses.”The trouble with the insanity defense in recent years is the assumption that virtually all criminals have some sort of mental problem. If a criminal could possibly commit such a heinous crime with calm and rational deliberation, would that individual not be the most insane and dangerous of all? It is very difficult to set a certain standard these days. It is almost a matter of “taste.” In my opinion, I do believe the insanity defense should remain in action. I do believe it causes a lot of problems and controversy in the judicial system but at the same time it allows mentally challenged individuals the option of a fair trial. If a person is found insane, I do believe that he or she deserves to be put in a mental hospital instead of a prison. However, I do think that the mental hospitals are becoming a little to lenient and anxious to finding their patients sane and letting them free. On the other hand, studies have been conducted on mental hospitals and prisons. What they have found is that their is not in incredible difference between the two. The whole reason for having mental hospitals is to rehabilitate these mentally unstable felons so they can be released into society as fully functioning individuals. It is my belief that if these hospital environments are not “up to par” then they will certainly not be able to perf...
