Sometimes the system faces criticism from the public.  The community chooses to pass judgment on judgments.  

There is a discontent or disconnect between community expectations and the judicial system. 

It's not to say that the system was wrong, but rather the fact community understanding could be limited.  

In some instances, the punishment available is not adequate.

This is why community consultation plays an important role in forming and reforming the justice system.

This week an issues paper was released examining whether the insanity defence reflects contemporary understanding of mental illness and impairment, whether the processes for determining fitness to stand trial and establishing the defence of insanity can be improved, and how well forensic orders work for those found not guilty by reason of insanity, or who are found not fit to stand trial but who cannot be acquitted.

Fitness to stand trial is the procedural provision that relates to whether or not the accused has the ability to understand or participate in their trial, not necessarily their mental capacity at the time of the alleged crime. Insanity refers to whether or not a person should be held criminally responsible based on mental capacity at the time of the offence.

Dr Rebecca Bradfield, who is Tasmania Law Reform Institute researcher and involved with the review, said her research showed people placed on forensic orders were subject to lengthier restrictions on their liberty than if they had been found guilty and sentenced the usual way.

What the paper has highlighted is a need for review, as the rules surrounding insanity were created without mental health in mind.

The benefit of our society is that we can all have a say. Given the community's high engagement in the justice system, many people should take the time to have input into the system.