One thing I find troubling is this case-

A man is acquitted of first degree robbery because he was taking xanax and prozac. Committed several robberies in a few days. It actually goes against the statute.

Psychiatric Drug Facts with Dr. Peter Breggin - Court finds antidepressants cause criminal behavior


Criminal Jury Instructions 6.4-1

If someone is in a meth amphetamine induced psychosis and commits a violent act is he not responsible for his actions? You could argue that he is an addict and his friends influenced him into doing the drugs so he is not responsible. Much in the same way a doctor advises a mentally ill patient to take meds. Should someone who is mentally ill and not taking meds be exonerated from committing a violent act because they are mentally ill. A mass murderer may have been horribly abused as a child. When do things like this become a legitimate defense even to the point of acquittal?
I believe very strongly in rehabilitation and recovery and it is pretty obvious that our criminal justice systems does a horrible job. Flat out doesn’t do the job. I don’t at all believe in forced meds or forced treatment even in prison. As part of my philosophy I don’t label anyone as evil. One of the main tenets of justice has always been holding people accountable for their actions even with mitigating circumstances. We have a duty and right to protect ourselves from the violent acts of others and to protect property.

Do we really want to go down the road where "the devil made me do it" or "God told me to" is grounds for acquittal in a murder case? Defense attorneys are going down this road. There is the insanity plea but the person is still held accountable.