The insanity defence : a student’s perspective on determining sanity

Abstract

This dissertation examines the insanity defence from the perspective of a student, concentrating on how sanity is defined, criticised, and utilised in the criminal justice system. The aim of the research is to investigate the relationship between legal and psychological frameworks for determining sanity, as well as to assess public awareness of this defence. It also makes recommendations for improving the way the idea of legal insanity is handled in court proceedings. A quantitative study design was used, utilising an online survey soliciting responses from 100 university students from diverse academic areas. The questionnaire measured participants' knowledge, attitudes, and opinions regarding legal responsibility, psychiatric evaluations, and the fairness of the insanity defence. The studies revealed varying levels of familiarity, with many students relying more on media depictions than formal education. Respondents recognised the role of mental illness in legal responsibility, however they expressed worries about bias, misuse, and public misunderstanding. The findings point to a clear need for educational reform, increased transparency in psychiatric examinations, and a more balanced legal approach. Finally, the study stresses the complexity of evaluating sanity in legal situations, as well as the importance of combining legal and psychological viewpoints to influence more equitable decisions.