Criminal Insanity

[sivaelectric]

Insanity at the time of the offense, we are told, relieves the offender of criminal responsibility. This may mean either that "insanity" is to serve as evidence that precludes establishing-by leaving in doubt-some material element of an offense, or that "insanity" is to serve as a defense to a crime, even though each of its elements can be established beyond doubt, to protect a preferred value threatened by the imposition of an authorized sanction.

Which of the following may be assumed from the preceding passage?

• A. Insanity at the time of trial is insufficient to deter conviction.
  B. Sanity may be a necessary and material element for the commission of a crime.
  C. The defense of insanity may be unnecessary since there are other more sophisticated means of proving innocence today.
  D. The insanity defense should be abolished as we have seen continued evidence of its abuse.
  E. The question of insanity has little bearing on the question of criminal responsibility and conviction.

[cans]

None of the options as such.
But to choose, i chose B

[sivaelectric]

OA B and the explanation is as follows,
Since insanity, as discussed, may preclude establishing a crime or as a defense to the commission of that crime, it can be assumed that the contrary state of mind- sanity-may be an indispensable element. The reader is left with the strong impression that sanity is an important aspect of criminality. B is the best choice as it speaks directly to the issue of sanity and its role in analyzing the elements of a crime.