{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{Title}: The insanity defense: effects of abolition unsupported by a moral consensus.
{Author}: Cobun LS;
{Journal}: Am J Law Med
{Volume}: 9
{Issue}: 4
{Year}: 1984
{Factor}: 0.694
{Abstract}: The insanity defense reflects the moral judgment that some criminal defendants do not deserve criminal sanctions because of mental incapacity. This Note examines the alternative formulations, such as guilty but mentally ill and diminished responsibility, that some states have enacted in the face of growing controversy over the insanity defense. It observes that the alternatives, if used in lieu of the insanity defense, distort the criminal law and do not comport with the legal doctrine of responsibility, which eschews punishing mentally ill defendants. The Note concludes that the insanity defense should not be abolished unless the moral consensus changes regarding the criminal responsibility of mentally ill defendants.