Insanity Defense: worth it?

"Pumpin' bumpin' scoopin' scumpin'
Homies be jumpin' with the pumpkins"

Personally, I think the insanity defense is a viable solution for crimes, but it definitely does get overused. When I read through my books on serial killers, I see how some of these killers clearly have some level of consciousness and reasoning, but they attempt to get off on the insanity defense anyway. In some cases, it's understandable (such as Ed Gein or Edmund Kemper), but with other's, I think it's just a cheap ploy to avoid jail time or the death penalty. I am glad that most juries find the insanity defense to be bunk. However, I do believe that sanity should be at least reviewed in some cases. Take for example, Albert Fish. Albert Fish was a serial killer who claimed victims all over the northeastern U.S., and he clearly had maniacal tendencies. When he was apprehended by the police and taken to court, he attempted to get off on the insanity defense, but he was found sane. I think this was a mistake. Anybody who had read about Albert Fish's life would know how big of a lunatic he was. I think he definitely could have gotten off, but he didn't. Defining insanity differs from many people though. What some people might consider insane, others might consider "quirky" or "eccentric". It's a very difficult thing to define completely. It's just one of those things. Finding whether someone is insane or not has go to be one of the hardest things for people to agree on.

Andrea Yates is one of those cases. I think Mrs. Yates was clearly insane, but I do not like how she is out and about in the free world. A person who has killed 5 other human beings does not deserve to have her rights. I just find that unfair. The death penalty wouldn't do anything to her I think. She wouldn't be able to comprehend why she was being killed. She thinks that the atrocity she committed was doing a good thing. This is where mental institution comes in handy. I think that the U.S. should start putting that to good use.