2022-02-242022-02-242009Arnold H. Loewy, The Two Faces of Insanity, 42 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 513 (2009-2010)https://hdl.handle.net/2346/88831Argues that insanity should rarely exculpate and never implicate. Thus, on the one hand, when insanity is invoked as a defense by one who has been proven guilty of the requisite mens rea and actus reus for the crime, insanity should rarely, if ever, exculpate. On the other hand, when the defendant lacks the requisite mens rea to commit the crime, whether because of insanity or any other non-self-induced reason, the defendant should not be guilty.engInsanity defenseInsane delusionsLacking criminal intentMens reaActus reusNon-self-induced reasonModel Penal CodeExculpate versus implicateArticle