PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Insanity Defense”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1991

The military insanity defense.

This article describes the military insanity defense. The success of the litigated insanity defense is explored through the number of insanity acquittals over a 28-month period. A questionnaire distributed to all United States Army psychiatrists provided information on the number of forensic evaluations performed, the number of not criminally responsible (NCR) opinions made, and the disposition of noncontested NCR opinions. The questionnaire also tested the Army psychiatrists' knowledge about recent changes in the military insanity defense. This pilot study raises interesting questions about the military insanity defense that further research can address.

Forensic Psychiatry↗
PubMed1991

The volume and characteristics of insanity defense pleas: an eight-state study.

The authors document the very complex process involved in identifying insanity defense pleas in eight states. Each state and each study county in each state required an individual approach. Most often, county court dockets were hand searched to identify those pleading insanity, although numerous other methodologies were used. The frequency and rate of insanity pleas and acquittals are presented for the study states as well as descriptive data on the characteristics of persons pleading and acquitted NGRI. Overall, the insanity defense was raised in one percent of all felony cases. Further, only 26 percent of those raising the insanity defense were actually acquitted NGRI. The necessity of obtaining data on insanity pleas to adequately understand and ultimately inform future directions of insanity defense research is discussed.

Commitment of Persons with Psychiatric Disorders↗
PubMed1975

Is the insanity defense "unconscionable"?

The debate over the meaningfulness and utility of the insanity defense has continued unabated ober the years. President Nixon has referred to the "unconscionably abuse" of the defense. This paper, presented as part of a panel on the subject, has propounded the view that the defense is unconscionable, using that aspect of the definition dealing with unreasonableness. The historical antecedents and the religious and social philosophy of the concept of responsibility and nonresponsibility have been reviewed. In addition to the inapplicability of the concept to current social problems, and the difficulties of applying current psychiatric knowledge to effect a rational delineation between the two legal entities encompassed under the rubric of responsibility and nonresponsibility, the potential problems and the potential opportunities which may result from the abolition of the plea are presented. With these factors in mind, as well as the obvious failure of the legal-social-penal system in handling the problems of the behaviorally deviant, I believe that the use of the current system has hampered the development of possibly more reasonable alternative systems and that, therefore, the maintenance of the insanity defense is unreasonable and harmful to our society. The insanity defense, as currently constituted and institutionalized, has evolved into a rigid and archaic vestige of the legal system of an earlier era and therefore its use has, in the sense defined, indeed become "unconscionable" and lacking in social meaningfulness.

Ethics↗
PubMed1991

The negligible effects of California's 1982 reform of the insanity defense test.

OBJECTIVE: The authors' goal was to determine whether changing the insanity test in California in 1982 actually affected use of the insanity defense. METHOD: They gathered information on all individuals who entered the insanity plea (N = 1,300) and all those acquitted by reason of insanity (N = 665) in seven counties in California 3 years before and 3 years after the change in the test of insanity. They focused on whether California's revision of the insanity test affected the number and rate of insanity pleas, the number and rate of insanity acquittals, the characteristics of individuals using the defense, the target offenses, and the length of stay of insanity acquittees. RESULTS: The reform did not affect the rate of insanity pleas or acquittals, the characteristics of those using the defense, or their length of confinement. CONCLUSIONS: Although the reform had no direct effects on the use of the insanity defense, the authors hypothesize that an indirect change in criminal sentencing practices led to a decrease in the number and rate of insanity pleas and acquittals.

California↗
PubMed1991

A prospective comparison of four insanity defense standards.

OBJECTIVE: Controversy about the formulation of the insanity defense has been intense, but little empirical work is available regarding how different standards affect court findings. The major aims of the present study were to determine if different standards for determining insanity produced different judgments and to provide a broad descriptive picture of those cases in which the standards appeared to make a difference. METHOD: Four forensic psychiatrists were asked to indicate whether they thought 164 defendants met any or all of four insanity tests: 1) the American Law Institute (ALI) cognitive criterion, 2) the ALI volitional criterion, 3) the APA test, and 4) the M'Naghten rule. RESULTS: The four psychiatrists determined that 97.5% of the defendants met the ALI volitional criterion, 73.9% met the APA criterion, 70.3% met the M'Naghten rule, and 69.5% met the ALI cognitive criterion. Nearly two-thirds of the defendants met all four insanity tests, and 24.4% met only the ALI volitional test. Few defendants met cognitive tests without also meeting the ALI volitional test. Elimination of the volitional test for insanity reduced the rate of psychiatric recommendations of acquittal by 24.4%. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the fact that the primary logical division between volitional and cognitive standards appears to be powerful but that distinctions between types of cognitive standards are not terribly powerful. In addition, the variation among individual raters must be viewed as an important determinant of how any insanity standard is applied.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1992

The insanity defense: a South African perspective.

The insanity defence has always been a contentious issue. This study was carried out on a sample of 95 consecutive forensic, psychiatric observation cases. The cost-effectiveness of ordering routine investigations during the observation period appeared to be questionable since the results of selective special investigations yielded more useful information. It was found that there was little calculated abuse of the insanity defence, but that the situation was rather one of barely literate persons naively attempting to use it, especially in cases of serious crime. The incidence of these naive users might have been greatly reduced had there been adequate screening before the accused were sent for observation. The court generally accepted the psychiatrist's opinion with regard to mental illness and criminal responsibility. It, however, differed on occasion when it came to the disposal of those accused who were found to be mentally ill.

Adult↗
PubMed1978

Insanity defense in Canada.

The author has reviewed in this paper the difficulties in developing a more generally accepted test of criminal responsibility. Such difficulties are more clearly seen when studying the applicability of the criminal responsibility test in Canadian law, Section 16, which the author describes as a disguised M'Naghten rule. Finally it is agrued that, because of the strictures encountered in the application of M'Naghten, some alternative routes have been developed at the courtroom level, notably Section 215 of the Criminal Code which deals with provocation. Section 215 gives legal footing to emotional conditions, producing an impairment in an accused's ability to form intent.

Automatism↗