An ethics prof and family man must prove his rehabilitation to a court-appointed psychiatrist when found not guilty of rape by reason of insanity and committed to a mental asylum.

Thanks, Odie! That slight change simplifies the logline a lot.

Leaning towards:
“An ethics professor must prove his rehabilitation to the prosecution's physiatrist when found not guilty of rape by reason of insanity”

Hi Nis. Thanks for your opinion. Great to see that someone else is interested in the human brain and finds the central dilemma posed in the logline interesting. I will consider your suggestion of having another main character. I thought about a lawyer friend of his who defends his case in court and tries to help him out of the asylum, but is ultimately conflicted by what the prof did and who he knows the prof to be / have been before the tumour.