The Insanity Defense Reform Act in New York State, 1980–1983

Abstract

The insanity statutes in New York State essentially follow the M’Naghten Rule (cognition) and they have, as elsewhere, quite accurately reflected the prevailing social and judicial values and policies regarding criminality and mental illness. Whereas in the 1960s and early 1970s issues such as rehabilitation and constitutional rights of the offender were predominant in criminal justice, current social and criminal philosophy appears to emphasize retribution and containment of the criminal, and society’s right to safety and protection. These changes in social values and policies are clearly observable in the increased role of “dangerousness” as a criterion for commitment, retention and release of those found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI). Although “dangerous to self” is included in this criterion, “dangerous to others” is almost exclusively the justification for involuntary commitment and retention of NGRIs. Extensive data on NGRIs in New York State are available for 1965-1978 through the research by Pasewark, Steadman, and colleagues (Pasewark, Pantle, & Steadman, 1979a; 1979b; 1982b; Pasewark, Bieber, Bosten, Kiser, & Steadman, 1982a; Steadman, 1980; Steadman, Keitner, Braff, & Arvanites, 1983b). Unfortunately, very little is known about NGRI acquittals in New York State since 1978, especially following the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1980. Such descriptive and comparative data are essential to assist the criminal justice and mental health systems in the planning of adequate policies and programs for disposition, treatment, and release of NGRIs. Prior to 197 1, NGRIs were treated in psychiatric hospitals under the auspices of the NYS Department of Correctional Services (DOCS). Since 1971, as the result of court orders and state legislation, NGRIs have been hospitalized in psychiatric centers administered and staffed by the NYS Office of Mental Health (OMH). This change resulted in a large increase of NGRI acquittals and in shorter hospitalizations, both in absolute length and relative to convicted felons (Pasewark et al., 1982b). In 1980, insanity statutes were revised in the Insanity Defense Reform Act. These reforms were triggered by recommendations from the Office of