In: Economics
Should a defense attorney be allow to use insanity as a defense for murder? Is this defense strategy overused? Provide an example of a crime in which the “act” is visible but the “intent” may not be as clear.
According to me a defence attorney shouldn't be allowed to use insanity as a defence for murder. Though this defence strategy is used again and again which means that it is overused but it shouldn't be used. Since murder is a very serious crime so for only the cause that the murderer is suffering from mental problem, murder can't be taken lightly or can't be considered logical. If the murderer was suffering from the mental problem it was the duty of his family members or the police to take care of him and not leave him free. So now if he had committed the crime he needs to be punished, now or after he recovered and can't be defended.
One example of a crime where the act is visible, but the intent is not visible may be- If a person hits another person by car and he is dead. In this case the crime is visible that the person hit him and he died. But the intent is not clear here as it may have happened accidently or he may have murdered him knowingly because he must be his enemy or he must have taken contract to kill him from some third person.