Philosophy of law.

Jared Loughner faced state as well as federal charges in connection with his shooting rampage in January 2011. Unlike the federal system, Arizona law does not allow for a defense of “not guilty by reason of insanity.” In response to growing frustration with the existing tests for insanity, jurisdictions like Arizona have created a new verdict – known as “guilty but insane” or “guilty but mentally ill” – as an alternative to the traditional options, “guilty” or “not guilty.” This verdict allows the jury to find that a person is sufficiently culpable to be said to have committed the crime but at the same time suffers from a mental illness. Under this alternate verdict, the accused is convicted and sentenced as a normal offender. He or she may then be moved to a treatment facility for all or part of the sentence, and any time remaining after the completion of treatment must be spent back in prison. (Adams 527). How would Morris judge this sentencing practice, and which reasons would he use based on his article “The Abolition of the Insanity Defense”? What would Morse say about this practice, deriving his argument from his article “Excusing the Crazy: The Insanity Defense Reconsidered”? Does this compromise verdict make sense? Do you think it is morally defensible, and what are your reasons? If you quote, please use quotation marks and give the appropriate reference (i.e. the place where you quote from).