Kostub Singla, O P Jindal Global University
ABSTRACT
There is a constant debate on whether the insanity defense should be used or should be banished. Some believe that the mentally ill are treated discriminatorily, and some believe that they are violent and a threat to society; therefore, they should not be coddled. However, mental illness among criminal offenders affects every stage of the criminal justice system from issues during the investigation to the implementation of competencies. If not everyone, then at least people with a severe mental disorder should be treated differently by the criminal law. The main question that arises after seeing various case studies is, how judges interpret insanity as a defense because in some cases they ignore the mental condition of an accused for the protection of society at large, and in other cases, they set them free. There is no certainty on how judges deal with such cases. I believe that one of the major reasons behind this is very well described by Ian Parker in his article Madness and Justice. According to him, there are different models of how insanity is interpreted and according to that judges give different verdicts. There are other measures to tackle this issue like GBMI (guilty but mentally ill) which I will discuss in detail later on, but despite these measures, the problem with the mentally ill still prevails. The main aim is to protect the rights of vulnerable individuals who fail to defend themselves in court and to preserve natural justice in the legal system while balancing the needs to see justice served and the protection of the public. This paper aims to analyze the importance of insanity as a defense in the criminal justice system and how insanity is interpreted differently throughout history by various associations like the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Illness (DSM) or International Classification of Diseases.
