ABSTRACT
Changes to laws regarding the removal of the insanity plea as an affirmative defense have created a new mental health reality for defendants with mental illnesses within the US criminal justice system. Though intervening in the legal system is difficult for rhetorical scholars due to the law’s closed discourse system, there are pathways for such scholars to intervene in this new reality and collaborate with stakeholders (e.g., lawyers, amicus organizations, professional mental health organizations) in mental health support networks that advocate for those with mental illnesses. Using impact litigation strategies as its example, the chapter documents the stages of impact litigation work and identifies the attendant intervention opportunities for rhetorical scholars to craft and deploy rhetorical support that is integral to developing and presenting arguments that both combat stigmas associated with insanity defenses and support defendants’ claims that they are not criminally responsible for their actions.
