Walsh is arguing for the abolition of the insanity defense as a legal doctrine — a policy position grounded in a legitimate debate about criminal justice philosophy. The insanity defense does exist in current U.S. law and is being invoked in multiple high-profile cases right now, including Luigi Mangione's case and several others. What the post doesn't acknowledge is that the insanity defense serves a specific purpose in law: it addresses whether defendants had the mental capacity to form criminal intent, which is foundational to how culpability works. The debate is really about where to draw that line, not whether mental state should matter at all.