something you do not judge to be imoral is not illegal or imoral

You simply make examples of people who have feigned mental incapacity. What I'm arguing is that something you do not judge to immoral i.e sacrifice or not being able to determine moral right from morale wrong should not be illegal but on this society one can argueI nsanity Defense "Well, the work offered by organized crime must hold an attraction to the insane." —Dr. Jonathan Crane, Batman Begins This is an affirmative defense in which it is claimed that the defendant in a criminal trial is or was unable to understand the nature or unlawfulness of their actions due to a mental defect or disorder, and thus not responsible for the consequences of those actions. "Insanity" here is a legal term, not a medical one, and the court decides whether it applies—though it will take the advice of medical professionals into account. While the use of insanity as a defense has been known since ancient times, it was codified in English law by the M'Naghten Rules of 1843, and the United States adopted similar rules for its use shortly thereafter. Most countries in the modern world have some variation of the insanity defense available to criminal defendants. Some jurisdictions instead have "Guilty But Insane," where insanity cannot be a complete defense, but can be a mitigating factor. In Real Life, the insanity plea is rare and difficult to succeed with. It is also a risky gamble, since it is an affirmative defense that requires the defendant to concede culpability in the crime in question and places the burden of proof on the defense to prove without a doubt their client was insane. Perhaps one percent of criminal cases even attempt an insanity defense, and only about a quarter of those are accepted, primarily if the defendant already has a history of mental illness. Furthermore, it requires expert testimony from a reputable psychiatric authority that the defendant was insane at the time they committed the crime, not just insane in general. Naturally, since the insanity defense is dramatic, it is used much more often in fiction. A variant is "Temporary Insanity," in which the defendant is claimed to have been suffering from an "irresistible impulse" during the crime, but is now sane. Thus, they can be released immediately, rather than being incarcerated for psychiatric treatment. This defense was first used in the United States by U.S. Congressman Daniel Sickles of New York in 1859, after murdering his wife's lover. It was most prevalent as a defense during the 1940s and '50s. Along similar lines, the "Extreme Emotional Disturbance" defense argues mitigating factors compromised the defendant's ability to think rationally. For instance, a man who shot his wife after catching her in bed with her lover could argue his emotional state at the time makes him guilty of the lesser crime of Manslaughter and not 2nd degree Murder. Since someone who has been declared "Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity" is incarcerated for psychiatric treatment until they are deemed no long a threat to themselves or others, this can result in a longer loss of freedom than a normal jail sentence would have caused. Because of this, a defendant has the right to insist that this defense not be used in their case. This has not stopped some defendants — both in fiction and in Real Life — going for this defence under the mistaken belief that a plea of 'insanity' means a cushier time than a regular jail sentence. Also, in some jurisdictions, such as the District of Columbia, a person found not guilty of a sex crime by reason of insanity must register as a sex offender, as though that person had been convicted. A "Catch-22" effect can be noticed with many juries—if the defendant is capable of understanding that an insanity plea would be a good idea, then perhaps they're not legally insane. (As insane people typically don't know they're insane - note emphasis on typically, since some actually do know there's something wrong with them.) This is in fact closely related to the original Catch-22, the dilemma discussed in that book that a serviceman who requests a discharge for insanity must be sane enough to think to do so. Another use of this trope common in fiction is for a floundering attorney to switch to an insanity defense as a last resort, ignoring the real-life procedural steps needed for this action. It almost never works, just emphasizing how doomed the client is. A related concept is fitness to stand trial. This is often confused with the insanity defense, particularly since they often apply to the same people, but fitness to stand trial says nothing about their mental state when they did the crime. It's about whether their current mental state allows them to understand the charges against them and conduct an appropriate defense. For example, there was one guy who was clearly responsible for the crime he did, but while awaiting trial, he got brain damage from a suicide attempt and became unfit to stand trial. Rather than going to jail, he went to a care facility, and if he ever recovers enough he will stand trial. Another concept related to insanity, although rarely seen in media, is diminished capacity. Diminished capacity is a claim that the defendant was unable to form the mental state (intent, recklessness, negligence, etc.) required for their action to be a crime. Because diminished capacity is not an affirmative defense, but rather the negation of an element of the crime, the burden of proof remains on the prosecution. Additionally, a successful diminished capacity defense results in a verdict of "not guilty", rather than "not guilty by reason of insanity", so the defendant is not incarcerated for psychiatric treatment (unless the state begins civil commitment proceedings). As a result, diminished capacity tends to be preferred to the insanity defense in jurisdictions in which it is allowed (although the two can be, and often are, combined). In the United States neither psychopathology or a personality disorder is generally accepted as grounds for an insanity plea, and most states will simply throw the perpetrator in jail like any other criminal if that is their mental illness, since though such persons may have the adequate Lack of Empathy that you can say they don't appreciate the moral reasons for why their crimes were wrong, in general they still understood that they were breaking the law, and having pathalogical justifications for doing so isn't good enough. However, other countries such as the United Kingdom do accept these as valid grounds, and many notorious British Serial Killers are locked up in mental institutions whereas in America they would be in jail, probably waiting for the Death Penalty. Such British prisoners, however, are usually not expected to ever be released and most of their appeals fail. In fiction, many cases of the Insanity Defence are often based on personality disorders, even if they are American. you see people condemn others for killing even if they and other for either sacrifice or insanity