
The insanity defence virtually uses mental disorder as an alibi for crime. It specifically claims that because the offender is incompetent of distinguishing between right and wrong doings, that ultimately, the crime he or she commits should be discounted. This spikes controversy in legal judicial systems.
The verdict compromises strict laws with empathetic acts. Cornell University further explains the how society views misconduct due to "irresistible impulse[s]", and that judgement is ultimately through faith. If the persecutor gets away without charge, the verdict will not satisfy the victims, as it sets free "innocent" serial killers and rapists, and forgive barbaric or inhumane misconduct. No wonder there is uproar in the community who feels more pity for the victims. Is it fair for the victim that a mentally impaired person walks away freely with what they have committed?

PROS in judging medically:
- Persecutors aren't imprisoned after committing crimes they've "unknowingly" done so that they would not hurt prison mates
- Persecutors receive penalty by being sent to asylums in extreme cases, or help from mental conditioning
- Degree of mental illness will be examined thoroughly, so that not all who use "not guilty by reason of insanity" as an excuse to commit a crime
CONS in judging medically and judging legally instead:
- Too much empathy from society may nurture more use of the excuse
- Insanity may be temporary