Editing Insanity defense (section)

====Controversy====
The insanity plea is used in the U.S. Criminal Justice System in less than 1% of all [[Criminal law|criminal]] cases.<ref name=Advocacy_Handbook/> Little is known about the criminal justice system and the mentally ill:

{{Blockquote|[T]here is no ''definitive'' study regarding the percentage of people with mental illness who come into contact with police, appear as criminal defendants, are incarcerated, or are under community supervision. Furthermore, the scope of this issue varies across jurisdictions. Accordingly, advocates should rely as much as possible on statistics collected by local and state government agencies.<ref name=Advocacy_Handbook>{{cite web
 |url         = http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/advocacy_handbook_all.pdf
 |title       = The Advocacy Handbook - FAQ
 |access-date  = 2015-08-02
 |url-status  = dead
 |archive-url  = https://web.archive.org/web/20161125192936/https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/advocacy_handbook_all.pdf
 |archive-date = 2016-11-25
}}</ref>}}

Some U.S. states have begun to ban the use of the insanity defense, and in 1994 the Supreme Court denied a petition of [[certiorari]] seeking review of a [[Montana Supreme Court]] case that upheld Montana's abolition of the defense.<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/aron/scotus032994.htm Court: Insanity Defense Not a Right] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170929095714/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/aron/scotus032994.htm |date=2017-09-29 }} Washington Post, March 29, 1994</ref> [[Idaho]], [[Kansas]], and [[Utah]] have also banned the defense. However, a mentally ill defendant/patient can be found [[Competence (law)#Competence to stand trial|unfit to stand trial]] in these states. In 2001, the [[Supreme Court of Nevada|Nevada Supreme Court]] found that their state's abolition of the defense was unconstitutional as a violation of Federal [[due process]].  In 2006, the Supreme Court decided ''[[Clark v. Arizona]]'' upholding Arizona's limitations on the insanity defense. In that same ruling, the Court noted "We have never held that the Constitution mandates an insanity defense, nor have we held that the Constitution does not so require." In 2020, the Supreme Court decided ''[[Kahler v. Kansas]]'' upholding Kansas' abolition of the insanity defense, stating that the Constitution does not require Kansas to adopt an insanity test that turns on a defendant's ability to recognize that their crime was morally wrong.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/kahler-v-kansas/|title=Kahler v. Kansas|website=SCOTUSblog|language=en|access-date=2020-03-23}}</ref>

The insanity defense is also complicated because of the underlying differences in philosophy between psychiatrists/psychologists and legal professionals.<ref name="Forensic">{{cite book|last=Schlesinger|first=Louis B.|title=Forensic science: an introduction to scientific and investigative techniques|year=2009|publisher=CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group|location=Boca Raton, FL|isbn=978-1-4200-6493-3|edition=3rd|editor=James, Stuart H. and Jon J. Nordby|pages=585–604|chapter=Forensic Psychology}}</ref>  In the United States, a psychiatrist, psychologist or other mental health professional is often consulted as an expert witness in insanity cases, but the ultimate ''legal'' judgment of the defendant's sanity is determined by a jury, not by a mental health professional.  In other words, mental health professionals provide testimony and professional opinion but are not ultimately responsible for answering legal questions.<ref name="Forensic"/>