When the public has been particularly anxious for vengeance after some crimes, judges and legislators have responded by cutting back the scope of the insanity defense. (…) Over many decades most American states moved from the strict rule to a more forgiving one that permitted the accused to argue that he was confronted with an irresistible impulse. But asking juries to judge the appropriate level of the second, regulative capacity proved unwieldy, and the results often seemed too permissive to many scholars as well as to the general public. The argument, made to a Florida court, that the defendant lacked the necessary regulative capacity because he had watched too much television, seemed a reductio ad absurdam that called the standard itself into question (nota de subsol 29 cu trimitere la Hugo Adam Bedau, Rough Justice: The Limits of Novel Defenses, Report (The Hastings Center) 8, no. 6, decembrie. 1978, pp. 8-11).
Notă MMB: Art. 28: Iresponsabilitatea
Nu este imputabilă fapta prevăzută de legea penală săvârşită de persoana care, în momentul comiterii acesteia, nu putea să-şi dea seama de acţiunile sau inacţiunile sale ori nu putea să le controleze, fie din cauza unei boli psihice, fie din alte cauze.
(Free Will and Responsability in Justice for Hedgehogs, Harvard University Press, 2011, la p. 250)