Temporary Insanity Plea:
Argument 1: Supporters of temporary insanity plea contend that it is necessary to consider an individual’s mental and emotional state when determining criminal responsibility (Hicks & McDermott, 2020). They believe that allowing this defense can provide defendants with the opportunity to be acquitted if their actions were a result of extreme distress or intoxication. Furthermore, proponents claim that taking into account such mitigating factors could ultimately help reduce recidivism among offenders who genuinely regret their actions and may benefit from psychological treatment instead of imprisonment.
Argument 2: On the other hand, those opposed to temporary insanity plea argue that it poses a risk for offenders to potentially avoid justice by exploiting loopholes in the legal system (Hicks & McDermott, 2020). They insist that individuals should still be held accountable for their actions regardless of any mental health issues they might have as these cannot excuse violent or illegal behaviors. Moreover, critics also worry that allowing this type of defense could open up potential avenues for abusers and other criminals to escape punishment.

Psychological Assessments for Convicted Criminals:
Argument 1: Those in favor of providing psychological assessments for convicted criminals suggest that assessing inmates’ mental health would lead to more effective rehabilitation programs tailored specifically towards each individual’s needs (Stojiljković et al., 2017). As such, supporters hope this strategy will reduce re-offending rates which could ultimately create safer communities in both the short and long term.
Argument 2: However, opponents caution against excessive reliance on psychological assessments due to possible biases against certain segments within society (Stojiljković et al., 2017). For example, they fear these evaluations may end up placing too much emphasis on socio-economic status or other external factors over actual criminal behavior itself which could lead dealerships deliver unfair punishments based solely on one’s personal background rather than merit.