Criminal Responsibility and neurodiversity: a legal-philosophical perspective on Insanity Defense

The insanity defense occupies a complex space at the intersection of law, psychology, and ethics, challenging how society addresses accountability for actions influenced by severe mental illness. It raises key questions about legal and moral responsibility and has evolved through history, shaped by cultural values, scientific advancements, and shifting societal views on mental health. Historically, insanity was often linked to supernatural or religious beliefs, leading to treatments ranging from rituals to punitive actions. The Enlightenment marked a turning point, introducing scientific approaches to mental illness that began influencing legal perspectives. Significant legal milestones include the M'Naghten Rule (1843), which focused on cognitive dysfunction, and later standards like the Irresistible Impulse Test and the Model Penal Code's substantial capacity standard, which consider both cognitive and volitional impairments. However, their application varies across jurisdictions. Contrary to popular belief, the insanity defense is rarely used or successful. Defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity often face lengthy confinement in psychiatric institutions, highlighting the defense as a route to treatment rather than a means to evade justice. Public and media perceptions amplify debates, especially in cases of violent crimes, revealing tensions between justice, public safety, and compassion for mental illness. This study examines the historical evolution, legal criteria, and societal implications of the insanity defense. It emphasizes the need for interdisciplinary collaboration and a balanced approach that integrates mental health understanding with legal frameworks, contributing to broader discussions on morality, accountability, and justice.