Is the insanity defense "unconscionable"?

The debate over the meaningfulness and utility of the insanity defense has continued unabated ober the years. President Nixon has referred to the "unconscionably abuse" of the defense. This paper, presented as part of a panel on the subject, has propounded the view that the defense is unconscionable, using that aspect of the definition dealing with unreasonableness. The historical antecedents and the religious and social philosophy of the concept of responsibility and nonresponsibility have been reviewed. In addition to the inapplicability of the concept to current social problems, and the difficulties of applying current psychiatric knowledge to effect a rational delineation between the two legal entities encompassed under the rubric of responsibility and nonresponsibility, the potential problems and the potential opportunities which may result from the abolition of the plea are presented. With these factors in mind, as well as the obvious failure of the legal-social-penal system in handling the problems of the behaviorally deviant, I believe that the use of the current system has hampered the development of possibly more reasonable alternative systems and that, therefore, the maintenance of the insanity defense is unreasonable and harmful to our society. The insanity defense, as currently constituted and institutionalized, has evolved into a rigid and archaic vestige of the legal system of an earlier era and therefore its use has, in the sense defined, indeed become "unconscionable" and lacking in social meaningfulness.