If you could create your own rule for determining insanity in criminal trials, what would it be? How would it differ from existing rules?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Many believe that the mechanisms by which insanity is determined are flawed. There is a sense of frustration engendered when one set of psychiatrists (the prosecution's) evaluates an offender as mentally competent while another set (the defense's) finds the same offender mentally impaired. The uncertainty caused by such conflicts leads to overwhelming mistrust of the process itself.
Additional mistrust results from the fact that the process of evaluating an individual's mental state is an inexact science that can be manipulated. The fact that practitioners can be—and have been—fooled into making incorrect diagnoses further diminishes public confidence in the system's ability to achieve a just solution.
Any modification of the rules for determining an offender's mental state would have to meet due process requirements. Given that due process affords the opportunity to challenge any claims made against the accused, any new rules would have to include comparable provisions. Consequently, the form of such rules would likely be similar to the existing forms.