In American criminal proceedings, either the defense or prosecution can hire their own psychologist or psychiatrist to conduct a forensic assessment of a criminal defendant. Are there any ethical concerns with this situation, and what are your thoughts on why, when both sides hire someone to complete the assessment, they often come to different conclusions (e.g., sane vs. insane)? What does that tell us about our system, and what can be done to improve the reliability of forensic assessments?
Do you think a criminal defendant should or should not be held accountable for their crimes if they are, in fact, found to have been insane at the time of the crime? Why or why not? What do you think "held accountable" should look like (e.g., incarceration, treatment, etc.)?
Finally, why do you think a majority of Americans are not very supportive of the   insanity defense in a criminal proceeding?