Abstract
Abstract Public outrage has been mounting in recent years over the increasing number of violent crimes and assassination attempts. Before the 1982 Hinckley verdict, criticisms over merits of the insanity defense were escalating. Immediately afterwards some inaccurate news reports and hyperbole by public figures added to the popular perception that the insanity defense and psychiatric testimony have allowed notorious offenders more favorable dispositions, or perhaps even to go “scot-free.” Systematic review of fates of prior Presidential assailants demonstrates that both legal and extralegal consequences for their violent acts have been severe. Some inferences are discussed.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
