The insanity defense is one of those laws that determine if offenders lose their liberty. The insanity defense might mitigate punishment but According to Christopher Slobogin, these defenses require proof of mental disability as a predicate (2015). Mental disability is the inability to build a determined thought of committing a crime. An organization called The Convention on the Rights of Persons with disabilities states that they want to abolish the special defense of insanity (Slobogin, 2015). The organization says if the defense excuses criminal activities it must focus on the “subjective element of the offense” (Slobogin, 2015). Slobogin proposes an integrationist model to criminal law pertaining to mental disability as a defense. This model provides people with mental disabilities the same defenses as offenders without disabilities. Slobogin created three propositions for his model. The first proposition of the model is that modern statutes have moved toward subjectification of mens rea and the insanity defense has lost its significance (Slobogin, 2015). The second proposition is that the integrationist model explains why mentally disordered persons should be excused because the insanity defense does not differentiate those that are excused and those who are not (Slobogin, 2015). The third is to focus on treatment and encourage the legitimacy of the criminal justice system (Slobogin, 2015). The …show more content…
The right to protect individuals with mental disabilities is¬ not guaranteed in some states’ criminal law statutes. According to Stephen J. Morse and Richard J. Bonnie, the state of Idaho abolished the insanity defense in the early 1980’s and implemented other provisions for handling these individuals (2013). Idaho allows offenders to introduce evidence of mental defect “solely for the purpose of negating the mens rea” needed for a crime to be charged (Morse & Bonnie, 2013). The case of Delling v. Idaho put these provisions into play. Delling was charged with murder by planning and murdering a few individuals. Delling knew the wrongfulness of his acts but because of his paranoid schizophrenia, he believed he needed to kill them to save his life. Mr. Delling had the mens rea necessary for murder but did not appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct. Certiorari was denied. The states that blame and punishment these individuals are fundamentally unfair and thus a violation of the due process clause if an offender was not responsible for his crime (Morse, Bonnie 2013). The defense implies that mental disabilities cause un-rational understanding of the unlawful act at the time of the offense. The offenders with mental disabilities do not deserve full blame and punishment as in the Delling case (Morse, Bonnie 2013). The court system recognizes that some impaired