Not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect or the insanity defense is widly used by

criminal defendants in the court and criminal justice system. The single most common variation is known
as: cognitive insanity. Within the confines of the test for cognitive insanity, the defendant must have been
so seriously impaired by some sort of mental disease or defect at the exact same time (or before) the time
of the act that they did not know the nature or eminence of the act, or, if the said defendant had no idea of
the nature or quality of the act, they committed and had no clue that it was wrong versus right. The overall
majority of the United States allows for those criminal defendants to summon the cognitive insanity
defense. An separate form of the insanity defense is also known as volitional insanity, or an Irresistible
Impulse. The defense of the irresistible impulse assumes that the defendant, (although able to distinguish
right from wrong) at the time the crime or act was committed, had suffered from a mental disease or
defect that made them vastly incapable of controlling their actions at that specific time. The basis of this
defense is more common in crimes committed out of vengeance. Take for example, a child that has been
brutally and violently assaulted. If an otherwise law-abiding mother pulls a gun and shoots the
perpetrator, then the mother has the basis to argue that she was so angered, and distraught that she became
(at the time of the crime) mentally ill and therefore incapable of exercising her self-control. Only a very
few of the United States allow for this particular type of defense. The insanity defense should not be
confused with Incompetency. Persons who are incompetent to stand trial are held in a mental institution
until they are considered capable of participating in the proceedings.
According to the FBI The insanity defense also should be kept separate from issues concerning mental
retardation. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2002 in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S. Ct. 2242,
153 L. Ed. 2d 335 (2002) that the execution of mentally retarded criminals constituted "cruel and unusual
punishment" and that it was prohibited by Eighth Amendment. But if a person is acquitted by reason of
insanity, execution is not an option. (para. 6) Furthermore the insanity defense replicates the generally
recognized notion that individuals who fail to appreciate the magnitudes of their actions should therefore
not be reprimanded for said criminal acts. Most states regulate the defense with statutes, but a few states
allow the courts to craft the rules for its proper use. According to Law Library 2012 When invoking
insanity as a defense, a defendant is required to notify the prosecution. In some states, sanity is
determined by the judge or jury in a separate proceeding following the determination of guilt or innocence
at trial. In other states, the defense is either accepted or rejected in the verdict of the judge or jury. Even if
evidence of insanity does not win a verdict of not guilty, the sentencing court may consider it as a
mitigating factor. (para 7)

FBI Insanity Defense Facts. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/law/defense_law/insanity
Law Library of the United States. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.lawlibrary.com