Empirical research on the insanity defense and attempted reforms: Evidence toward informed policy.

Abstract

The paper addresses some common questions about the insanity defense and issues raised by commonly proposed "reforms." The first section begins with a brief description of the insanity defense and the reasons for its existence in the law. It then examines some of the popular myths and public misperceptions surrounding the insanity defense. The next three sections discuss proposed "reforms" and the empirical research that addresses their effect. These reforms, including various procedural changes in definitions, burden of proof, and expert testimony, the institution of a guilty but mentally ill verdict, and the abolition of the insanity defense itself, are reviewed, along with relevant research findings and policy issues. Finally, the development of sound conditional release programs for criminal defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity is proposed as a reform option which could serve the objectives of enhancing public safety and access to appropriate treatment while continuing to meet the objectives of the insanity defense within criminal jurisprudence.Virtually all of us can recount the details of a well-publicized insanity defense case in our home state. For example, on January 26, 1995, a 26-year-old law student named Wendell Williamson armed himself with a rifle he took from his father's house. He then walked through the streets of a college town in North Carolina shooting at people in his path. By the end of this incident, two people were dead

Acquired Sociopathy and Frontotemporal Dementia

“…This raises the question of legal culpability or eligibility for the insanity defense. The original 'McNaughton rule' defi ned someone as insane if 'at the time of committing the act, the accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or, if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong' [53] . In 1972, the American Law Institute proposed a more liberal defi nition [53] , but this was reversed in 1984, when the US Congress passed the Comprehensive Crime Control Act.…”

“…The original 'McNaughton rule' defi ned someone as insane if 'at the time of committing the act, the accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or, if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong' [53] . In 1972, the American Law Institute proposed a more liberal defi nition [53] , but this was reversed in 1984, when the US Congress passed the Comprehensive Crime Control Act. The federal insanity defense requires convincing proof that someone was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts [53] .…”

“…In 1972, the American Law Institute proposed a more liberal defi nition [53] , but this was reversed in 1984, when the US Congress passed the Comprehensive Crime Control Act. The federal insanity defense requires convincing proof that someone was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts [53] . Our FTD patients, however, knew that their acts were wrong at the time they committed them.…”

Neuroimage Evidence and the Insanity Defense

“…In California, the figure was one in 27,000. Nationally, fewer than 0.2% of felony prosecutions ended in a verdict of insanity [McGinley & Pasewark, 1989; National Commission on the Insanity Defense, 1983;Borum & Fulero, 1999]). But if the rates of insanity acquittals increased as a result of jurors giving neuroimage evidence weight that substantially exceeds its real probative value, which is the central concern, we would be trading one set of biases and errors for another.…”

The Utility of the SASSI‐3 in Early Detection of Substance Use Disorders in Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity Acquittees: An Exploratory Study

“…In fact, less than 1% (0.93%) of all felony cases in the United States attempt the NGRI defense, only about 1 in 4 (26.27%) of which are successful (Melton, Petrila, Poythress, & Slobogin, 1997;Silver, Cirincione, & Steadman, 1994). Borum and Fulero (1999) concluded with similar statistics: Whereas there is variability among jurisdictions, the insanity defense is raised less than 1% of the time in felony cases, with a success rate of only 15%-25%.…”