How does the legal concept of insanity differ from psychiatric explanations of mental illness? Does the insanity defense serve a useful function today?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Legal insanity meets the needs of the judiciary and is used to determine guilt and innocence. Psychiatry is concerned with the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness, and medical conceptions do not always fit into the legal categories to handle cases involving the mentally ill.
Arguments supporting the insanity defense often cite the need to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Proponents often liken the mentally disabled to a child because, like a child, they lack the capacity for making sound, rational decisions or for controlling their actions. Because the behavior of such persons does not result from reasoned choice, proponents say, it is behavior for which they simply cannot be held culpable.
Opponents of the insanity defense discount the notion that anyone can be relieved of responsibility for his or her actions on the basis of an inability to make "right" choices. They often argue that, right choice or not, the actions of the mentally disabled are based on choices they themselves made and for which they should be held responsible. Opponents sometimes present the dubious argument that since the mentally disabled realize benefits from their right choices, it is only fair that they be held responsible for their wrong choices as well.