By reason of insanity?

[joannekim]

I think this law is valid if the person had mental disorder for a long time. We should understand that mentally challenged person may not discern between right and wrong or make an impulsive, violent action. However, we should make sure that this law is not abused by some to escape the punishment after feigning madness. And we should also make sure that mentally handicapped defendant should be watched or stay in institution after the trials. For Hamlet, I do not think this law can be applied since revenge cannot be a valid reason for murder...he is angry and depressed, not mad.

[elijahlee]

I don't think that pleading insanity should allow you to get a much easier sentence. I for one think that the person would automatically have to be a little bit crazy in order to kill someone. "Being insane" is not a good enough reason for getting an easier sentence, because the crime committed in and of itself makes the murderer crazy. I don't think that Hamlet is the best choice for Hamlet, and that is because I believe in that cliche saying that says that "two wrongs don't make a right." Hamlet is not solving anything through murder, just making the problem worse.

[minchoi0923]

Technically, it is a valid law but it's just that there are too many people who are abusing this law. I heard that almost 40% of the murderers and rapists get freed just because they were on drugs or drunk when they were committing those crimes. This is just nonsense. Also, it's hard to draw a line between insanity and being normal because each person's standard is different. So I think although the law seems valid, since there are so much vagueness and people who are abusing it, it's better to not use it.

[michellelee]

I think the law is valid in those cases in which the murderer has certain mental problems. But I still think that a person even with mental illnesses should be given a harsh punishment for his or her crime in order to make them realize that it is not acceptable.

[julielu]

hello

[sammy576]

I dont there is or should be any allyby for murder. Even if it is deep and serious insanity, I do not think it should be an excuse for murder.

[sang]

It's funny how this relates a lot to our court trial now. To answer that question, I think it depends on one's moral standards. It's righteous in the sense that if the person were under some mental condition or anything of that sort, then it could seem valid since the heinous murder wasn't done in complete intention. Yet, if the person did have that in the first place, the people should've taken care of and not let him recklessly kill someone. So the people's laxity could disprove the validity of this case. Ultimately, it depends on one's perspective in my opinion.

[sammy576]

I must say that even though i DO believe it serves no allyby, it honestly does kinda depend on someone's moral standards.

[alexkoo]

I do not think it is valid at all. So many people say they were drunk when they were killing someone or raping someone. If they are crazy, why did they even come outside without someone taking care of them? If you have mental problems, be careful so that no one gets harmed because of you. So many criminals abuse it to get lower charge, and some judges take it. It is so common in Korea when they were drunk, charge goes down.

[tha0ism]

I think laws like these are valid because if a person isnt in control of themselves or cannot fully control themselves, then why give them such a harsh punishment. In the case of hamlet, its diffucult to determine whether if he is actually under a state in which he should or shouldnt be punished. because we arent even sure that hamlet is actually crazy or not.