Insanity Cases Research Articles

The insanity defense in Shelby County, Tennessee

The purpose of this investigation was threefold: to document the number of cases in Shelby County, Tennessee where an insanity defense was possible: to follow cases through to disposition to determine what percentage of defendants use the defense successfully; and to examine the type of charges for insanity cases. Of the 25.000 individuals processed through the Criminal Courts. 685 (2.7%) were referred for insanity evaluations and 45 defendants (6.6%) were returned to the court with a recommendation from the Midtown Mental Health Center's Forensic Team that an insanity defense was possible. Of the 45 insanity defendants identified, 49% (n=22) pleaded guilty, 31% (n=14) went to trial, and 20% (n=9) were dismissed. Overall, 22% (n=10) of the insanity defendants were adjudicated not guilty by reason of insanity. Thus, of all defendants processed (25,000), 04% (n=11) were adjucated not guilty by reason of insanity. While no one type of offense predominated, two general categories were observed: murder and related offenses (33%) and property crimes (27%). The findings are discussed with reference to procedures for handling insanity cases in Tennessee and the position that extreme caution should be exercised before investing substantial resources to effect sweeping changes in laws that effect so few criminal defendants.

The insanity defense and presidential peril

S ix shots broke the calm of a Washington afternoon on March 30, 1981, as John W. Hinckley, Jr., emptied his revolver of carefully chosen, Devastator. explodingtype bullets. Four of his six shots connected, hitting President Reagan, presidential Press Secretary James Brady, a Secret Service agent, and a policeman. Now four years later Congress has made substantial changes in the rules governing the defense that enabled Hinckley to be judged not guilty by reason of insanity. These changes are contained in the Comprehensive Crime Control Act passed on October 12, 1984. As part of the shift away from the rights of the criminal toward the interests of society, a shift also evident in recent Supreme Court decisions, this new anticrime package makes it tougher for defendants to gain pretrial and presentencing release, increases penalties for bail jumping, authorizes judges to impose supervision on defendants after prison terms are complete, and stiffens penalties for drug trafficking. The legislation also creates a commission to write uniform sentencing guidelines binding judges in federal cases unless they dissent in writing and legislates for the first time how the insanity defense should be used in federal insanity trials. Previously, Congress had allowed the federal appeals courts to establish, for trials within their jurisdictions, rules governing which side in federal insanity cases has to prove insanity and guidelines defining how sick is sick enough to bring acquittal by reason of insanity. This might well have remained the situation had it not been for Hinckley. Americans repeatedly witnessed his attempt at assassination on television and saw him vilified as the perpetrator of a heinous crime that has become all too common in America. Hinckley's sixth and final shot lodged in the president's lung after ricocheting off the presidential limousine. His first shot pierced the brain of Press Secretary James Brady. There was widespread feeling that confinement to a mental institution, with provision for release pending recovery, is not a severe enough penalty for Hinckley's crime. Many felt that if such mentally disturbed assassins as Sirhan B. Sirhan, Arthur Bremer, Squeaky Fromme, and Sara Jane Moore are in jail, why shouldn't Hinckley be? Why should he instead be in St. Elizabeth's Hospital in Washington, D.C. where, as New York Times reporter Stuart Taylor remarked in a September, 1982, Harper's article, his living conditions improved from what they had been in the months prior to his crime, and he had the egotistical pleasure of signing autographs for other patients. Others agreed with the verdict in the Hinckley case. An ABC News poll conducted the day after the acquittal was announced showed that 17 percent supported the verdict. After all, Western legal standards hold that seriously disturbed individuals who do not appreciate the wrongfulness of their conduct should be treated differently under the law than others. This is a principle found in the Talmud, in Aristotle's work, in Roman law, and in English common law commentaries as early as Henrici Bracton's thirteenth-century De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae. The Roman law formulation found in Justinian's sixth-century codification makes the essential point:

Movie-inspired violence.

A compilation of 58 incidents of alleged movie-inspired violence from 1970 through 1982 produced findings dominated by male victims, handguns, and one particular movie, The Deer Hunter. The need to structure a causal connection between pretend violence and real violence led the authors to propose a three-step standard of identification, perseveration of beliefs, and execution of those beliefs. This standard is explored in relation to several movies, including the insanity case of John Hinckley ( Taxi Driver) and of a young mother charged with killing her daughter ( The Exorcist).

John Hinckley, Jr. and the Insanity Defense: The Public's Verdict

Public furor over the Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity verdict in the trial of John Hinckley, Jr. already has stimulated legal changes in the insanity defense. This study documents more systematically the dimensions of negative public opinion concerning the Hinckley verdict. A survey of Delaware residents shortly after the trial's conclusion indicated that the verdict was perceived as unfair, Hinckley was viewed as not insane, the psychiatrists' testimony at the trial was not trusted, and the vast majority thought that the insanity defense was a loophole. However, survey respondents were unable to define the legal test for insanity and thought Hinckley would be confined only a short period of time, contrary to the estimates of experts. These findings, in conjunction with other research showing the public is not well informed about the insanity defense, underscore the importance of examining determinants of opinion about the insanity defense before additional reform is undertaken. Valerie P. Hans is an Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice and Psychology, and Dan Slater is an Assistant Professor of Communication, at the University of Delaware. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Valerie P. Hans, Division of Criminal Justice, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19711. Public Opinion Quarterly Vol. 47.202-212 ? 1983 by the Trustees of Columbia University Published by Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. 0033-362X/83/0047-202/$2.50 This content downloaded from 157.55.39.27 on Wed, 07 Sep 2016 05:29:05 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms HINCKLEY AND THE INSANITY DEFENSE 203 Delaware legislature passed a law providing a Guilty But Mentally Ill verdict alternative in insanity cases. Proposals to abolish or restrict the insanity verdict are before legislatures in other states, and the White House has announced its plan for revision of the insanity defense (Hoffman, 1982; Philadelphia Inquirer, 1982; Putzel, 1982; New York Times, 1982a). The Hinckley trial promises to be a benchmark in the reform of the insanity defense. The purpose of the study reported here is to provide a more complete account of public opinion about the Hinckley trial and insanity defense. In an attempt to understand the determinants of reactions to the trial, the paper also explores demographic and attitudinal correlates of opinions about the Hinckley verdict. Previous research on perceptions of the insanity defense is sparse, but the available literature indicates that the public always has taken a dim view of the defense (e.g., Moran, 1981). Public opinion polls consistently have shown that a majority of Americans believe the insanity defense is a loophole that allows too many guilty people to go free (Bronson, 1970; Fitzgerald and Ellsworth, 1980; Harris, 1971). Perhaps as a consequence of this perception, the reluctance of juries to find defendants NGRI is legendary. More detailed analyses of perceptions of the insanity defense or the criminally insane show decidedly negative attitudes but widespread misconceptions (Howell, 1982; Pasewark, 1981; Steadman and Cocozza, 1977). Therefore, we expected our survey to reveal: (1) considerable negativity about the insanity defense in general, and the Hinckley verdict in particular, and (2) poor to moderate knowledge about the insanity defense.

Insanity Revised: Once More over the Cuckoo's Nest

Currently, strong impetus is observed to alter or abolish the insanity plea. These endeavors are questioned on the following grounds: (1) the current lack of empirical data concerning the manner in which the plea operates presently; (2) the retrogressive nature of the alternative proposals made; (3) the constitutionality of the plea; and (4) as an overreaction to criticism generated by a few, well-publicized insanity cases.

Insanity and Matrimonial Cases

Insanity and Matrimonial Cases

Eliminating the Battle of Experts in Criminal Insanity Cases

Eliminating the Battle of Experts in Criminal Insanity Cases