Improper designations of offenders effectively labels mentally ill offenders as guilty and places those offenders in regular corrective institutions with little or no mental health treatment”
(Gracheck 2006).
existing insanity tests are INSUFFICIENT
The insanity defense as a whole is extremely controversial. As a result, the specific parameters involved in determining mental illness are highly contested. Because there is no clear policy that directs all mental health evaluations, it is almost impossible to fairly assess individual cases. Two of the most frequently employed tests, The M’Naughten test and the Irresistible Impulse Test, exemplify the shortcomings of present policies.
The M'Naughten Test: "[T]o establish a defense on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason as to not know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it; he did not know he was doing something wrong" (Robin 1997).
The M’Naghten test favors the evaluation of cognitive ability as the sole determinant of mental sanity. However, the test fails to account for other relevant factors such as “the existence or classification of mental defect” and volitional abilities “such as the actor’s ability to will, control, or appreciate the consequences of his acts” (Grachek 2006). As a result, actors who possess the cognitive ability to comprehend their conduct are deemed guilty, regardless of whether they possessed the ability to control their conduct.
The Irresistible Impulse Test: "The defendant should not be held criminally liable for their actions that broke the law, because they could not control those actions, even if they knew them to be wrong" (Cotrone 2016).
The volitional test only acquits individuals with the complete inability to control their actions. In doing so, it leaves no room for individuals whose agency is intact, but whose cognitive understanding of morality is inhibited. As a result, actors who possess the volitional ability to control their conduct are convicted, regardless of if they understood the morality of their actions.
Overall, frequently, these insanity tests fail to accurately identify mentally ill individuals. Mentally ill individuals convicted under the narrow pretenses of these tests receive the same treatment as sane individuals.
the lack of uniform policy is problematic
Under the current policy, “the criminal justice system lacks a uniform insanity standard that correctly identifies offenders who are mentally ill” (Gracheck 2006). Presently, no uniform test for insanity exists across the nation. Instead, state courts have significant liberty to employ insanity tests of their choice and assign verdicts accordingly (Plaut 1983). The lack of a uniform insanity standard is problematic for two key reasons. First, the potential for vastly different results across jurisdictions contradict the notions of equity and justice that the policy aims to promote. Offenders accused of similar offenses should receive similar treatment under the law. Furthermore, the lack of uniform standards often leads to “improper designations of offenders,” which “effectively labels mentally ill offenders as guilty and places these offenders in regular corrective institutions with little or no mental health treatment” (Gracheck 2006). As long as we remain unable to unify around a consistent policy, individuals across the nation continue to be improperly diagnosed, inadequately treated, and unjustly imprisoned. The promise of treatment instead of punishment is indeed necessary. However, it may be hollow under a system that does not accurately select and provide adequate care to those in need of it.