Opinion
Insanity defense justice raises an uncomfortable but unavoidable question: when the law cannot punish a killer, who does justice ultimately serve?
The fatal shooting of a pregnant Korean woman in Seattle, Washington, has now concluded with a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. The court ruled that the suspect, Cordell Goosby, lacked criminal responsibility at the time of the attack. Expert witnesses agreed on the diagnosis, and prosecutors ultimately accepted the conclusion.
From a legal standpoint, the ruling can be explained. Modern criminal law is built on the principle that punishment requires responsibility. If a defendant lacked the capacity to understand or control their actions at the time of the crime, the law traditionally holds that punishment cannot follow.
But legal reasoning does not erase grief. Nor does it quiet the public anger that follows tragedies like this.
On June 13, 2023, at an intersection in Seattle’s Belltown neighborhood, Goosby approached a car stopped at a red light and fired at least six shots into the driver’s seat. Inside the vehicle was 34-year-old Eina Kwon, who was eight months pregnant. She died at the scene. Her daughter Evelyn, delivered through an emergency procedure, also did not survive.
According to the King County Prosecutor’s Office, roughly 100 homicide cases over the past four decades in the region have ended with not-guilty verdicts because of insanity. On average, two or three homicide cases each year move from the realm of punishment into the realm of psychiatric management.
A not-guilty verdict is a legal declaration, not proof that danger has disappeared. The loss of judgment at the moment of a crime does not guarantee public safety in the future.
Goosby’s background raises further questions. Investigators learned that he had previously received psychiatric treatment. Authorities also discovered he had been wanted in Indiana in connection with a domestic violence case in 2020. In Illinois, he had a felony record that legally barred him from possessing firearms. Yet the weapon used in the shooting was a stolen handgun.
These facts leave an unsettling question: was this tragedy truly unpredictable?
Individuals found not guilty by reason of insanity are typically placed under psychiatric supervision or institutional care. In theory, the system prioritizes treatment while protecting the public. In practice, however, resources are limited.
According to the U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration, about 122 million Americans — roughly 37% of the population — live in areas experiencing shortages of mental health professionals. Long-term treatment facilities remain scarce, and the legal standards for involuntary commitment are high.
Because of these gaps, critics often describe the situation as a failure of the mental health system. Dangerous individuals may move through treatment systems without sustained monitoring, eventually returning to public spaces where the risks remain.
In that sense, insanity defense justice exposes more than a legal doctrine. It reveals the structural weaknesses of the institutions meant to protect both patients and the public.
For victims’ families, an insanity verdict can feel like a second trauma. When legal responsibility disappears, the system offers little sense of closure.
When a criminal trial ends without punishment, victims may feel abandoned by the very institutions meant to protect them. Public debate often centers on the defendant’s mental state and legal rights, while the rights of victims quietly recede into the background.
Courts may analyze psychiatric conditions and neurological factors, but they cannot rebuild lives destroyed by violence. Within the current justice system, support and compensation for victims’ families often remain secondary concerns.
If the law cannot deliver justice through punishment, society must provide meaningful alternatives. Yet the present structure tends to focus more heavily on the perpetrator’s right to treatment than on the public’s need for protection.
This case leaves several unresolved questions. Are monitoring and treatment systems strong enough to prevent repeat tragedies after an insanity verdict? Are sufficient resources allocated to supervise individuals who have committed violent crimes but cannot be criminally punished? And does society provide a meaningful safety net for the families left behind?
No legal system can guarantee perfect justice. But society has at least one obligation: preventing the repetition of tragedy.
If punishment is legally impossible, then strict supervision, treatment, and containment must follow. Without those safeguards, insanity defense justice risks becoming not a balance between compassion and accountability, but a system that leaves victims behind.
The verdict may close the case in court. The responsibility that remains belongs to society.
