The insanity defense exists because criminal law traditionally requires both a wrongful act (actus reus) and a guilty mind (mens rea). If severe mental illness prevents understanding that an act is wrong, there's no culpable mental state. Critics argue this creates incentive for feigning illness, or that dangerously violent people shouldn't avoid consequences. Defenders maintain that punishing someone who genuinely couldn't distinguish right from wrong violates basic principles of justice.
It can be inferred from the text that
all violent acts result in insanity defenses
legal doctrines may embody trade-offs between competing values like public safety and just punishment
criminal law only considers actions, never mental states
faking mental illness is impossible
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the best answer. The defense balances punishment principles against safety concerns.
- Context clues: Defense exists for justice; critics worry about dangerous people avoiding consequences.
- Meaning: The doctrine involves balancing punishment principles with public safety.
- Verify: The opposing arguments highlight competing values.
💡 Strategy: When defenders and critics emphasize different values, infer a values trade-off.
Choice A is incorrect because the defense applies only to those who "couldn't distinguish right from wrong." Choice C is incorrect because "guilty mind (mens rea)" is explicitly required. Choice D is incorrect because feigning illness is cited as a concern by critics.