Unlike media portrayals of murderers released from the insanity defense, the not guilty by reason of insanity (NRGI) defense is raised in approximately 1 in 100 crime cases ( as cited in Miller, 2014). In cases of serial killers, although they may have an impulsive drive to kill due to their psychophysiology, they are no exception to the insanity defense because they can distinguish right from wrong when committing their heinous acts, but due to their lack of empathy, they do it anyway. They were engaged in the guilty act (actus reus), had the intent to commit the act (mens rea), and were not mentally impaired in any way at the time of the crime (Siegel & Worrall, 2013, p. 136). The closest implication to the insanity claim when it comes to psychopathy would be the defense based solely on the physiological deficit of empathy. As Miller (2014) states, “He is no more culpable for his acts than would be a blind man who runs into another person and hits them in traffic.” Despite the controversy surrounding psychopathy within the courts, the diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder, or psychopathy, is never successful. Instead, it serves as a determining factor in prison sentences because psychopathic offenders are more likely to commit crimes again and not be deterred (Siegel &