In contrast to the jurisprudential history of the insanity defense, significant empirical research on its use and effects has emerged only in the past decade. The research is organized here around six major questions closely related to the public policy questions that have gained much currency in the wake of the John Hinckley trial. In many instances, the research data sharply conflict with popular notions of who are acquitted by reason of insanity and how long they are hospitalized after acquittal. There is considerable consistency across jurisdictions on the characteristics of acquittees and their recidivism rates, but substantial differences on the length of their detention both across jurisdictions and in different time periods within jurisdictions. Future research, to be productive for both policy and substantive purposes, requires multistate designs with a systemic approach.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1. Henry J. Steadmanet al., “Mentally Disordered Offenders: A National Survey of Patients and Facilities,”Law and Human Behavior, 6:31-38 (1982).
2.
2. U.S., Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners 1925-81, NCJ-85861 (Washington, DC: Department of Justice, 1982).
3.
3. National Institute of Mental Health, Additions and Resident Patients at End of Year, State and County Mental Hospitals, by Age and Diagnosis, by State, United States 1978 (Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services, 1981).
4.
4. Richard A. Pasewark and Deborah Seidenzahl, “Opinions Concerning the Insanity Plea and Criminality among Mental Patients,”Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 8:199-202 (1980); and Richard A. Pasewark and Mark L. Pantle, “Insanity Plea: Legislator's View,”American Journal of Psychiatry, 136:222-223 (Mar. 1979).
5.
5. Pasewark and Pantle, “Insanity Plea: Legislator's View.”
6.
6. Henry J. Steadmanet al., “Factors Associated with a Successful Insanity Defense,”American Journal of Psychiatry, 140:401-405 (Apr. 1983).
7.
7. Michael L. Perlin, “Whose Plea Is It Anyway? Insanity Defense Myths and Realities,”Philadelphia Medicine, 79:5-10 (Jan. 1983).
8.
8. Steadmanet al., “Factors Associated with a Successful Insanity Defense.”
9.
9. Ibid.
10.
10. William R. Morrow and Donald B. Petersen, “Follow-up on Discharged Offenders—`Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity' and `Criminal Sexual Psychopaths,' ”Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 57:31-34 (1966).
11.
11. Gerald Cooke and Cynthia Sikorski, “Factors Affecting Length of Hospitalization in Persons Adjudicated Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity,”Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 2:251-261 (1974); Richard A. Pasewark, Mark Pantle, and Henry J. Steadman, “The Characteristics and Dispositions of Persons Found Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity,”American Journal of Psychiatry, 136:655-660 (May 1979); Henry J. Steadman, “Insanity Acquittals in New York: 1965-1978,”American Journal of Psychiatry, 137:231-326 (Mar. 1980); John Petrila, “The Insanity Defense and Other Mental Health Dispositions in Missouri,”International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 5:81-102 (1982); Betty L. Phillips and Richard A. Pasewark, “Insanity Plea in Connecticut,”Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 8:325-334 (1980); Jeffrey L. Rogers and Joseph D. Bloom, “Characteristics of Persons Committed to Oregon's Psychiatric Security Review Board,”Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 10:155-164 (1982).
12.
12. Steadman, “Insanity Acquittals in New York.”
13.
13. Phillips and Pasewark, “Insanity Plea in Connecticut.”
14.
14. Cooke and Sikorski, “Factors Affecting Length of Hospitalization in Persons Adjudicated Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity.”
15.
15. Steadman, “Insanity Acquittals in New York.”
16.
16. Anne Singer, “Insanity Acquittals in the Seventies: Observations and Empirical Analysis in One Jurisdiction,”Mental Disability Law Reporter, 2:406-417 (1978).
17.
17. Petrila, “Insanity Defense and Other Mental Health Dispositions in Missouri.”
18.
18. Rogers and Bloom, “Characteristics of Persons Committed to Oregon's Psychiatric Security Review Board.”
19.
19. Phillips and Pasewark, “Insanity Plea in Connecticut.”
20.
20. William Dobbs and Joseph Henneberry, “A Special Report on the Commitment of Persons Found Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity,” mimeographed (Washington, DC: St. Elizabeth's Hospital, 1983).
21.
21. Steadman, “Insanity Acquittals in New York.”
22.
22. Rogers and Bloom, “Characteristics of Persons Committed to Oregon's Psychiatric Security Review Board.”
23.
23. Unpublished data from the New York State Office of Mental Health, Albany, NY.
24.
24. Phillips and Pasewark, “Insanity Plea in Connecticut.”
25.
25. Ibid.' Steadman, “Insanity Acquittals in New York.”
26.
26. Dobbs and Henneberry, “Special Report on the Commitment.”
27.
27. Mark L. Pantle, Richard A. Pasewark, and Henry J. Steadman, “Comparing Institutionalization Periods and Subsequent Arrests of Insanity Acquittees and Convicted Felons,”Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 8:305-316 (Fall 1980).
28.
28. Richard A. Pasewar, Mark L. Pantle, and Henry J. Steadman, “Detention and Rearrest Rates of Persons Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity and Convicted Felons,”American Journal of Psychiatry, 139:892-897 (July 1982).
29.
29. Phillips and Pasewar, “Insanity Plea in Connecticut.”
30.
30. Dobbs and Henneberry, “Special Report on the Commitment.”
31.
31. Jeffrey L. Rogers, Joseph D. Bloom, and Spero M. Manson, “Oregon's New Insanity Defense System: A Review of the First Five Years—1978-1982” (Paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Portland, OR, Oct. 1983).
32.
32. Pantle, Pasewark, and Steadman, “Comparing Institutionalization Periods.”
33.
33. Richard A. Pasewarket al., “Criminal Recidivism among Insanity Acquittees,”International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 5:365-374 (1982).
34.
34. Pasewark, Pantle, and Steadman, “Characteristics and Dispositions of Persons Found Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity.”
35.
35. Steadman, “Insanity Acquittals in New York.”
36.
36. Phillips and Pasewark, “Insanity Plea in Connecticut.”
37.
37. Rogers and Bloom, “Characteristics of Persons Committed to Oregon's Psychiatric Security Review Board.”
38.
38. Pantle, Pasewark, and Steadman, “Comparing Institutionalization Periods”; Pasewark, Pantle, and Steadman, “Detention and Rearrest Rates.”
39.
39. Phillips and Pasewark, “Insanity Plea in Connecticut.”
40.
40. Henry J. Steadman, Joseph J. Cocozza, and Mary E. Melick, “Explaining the Increased Crime Rate of Mental Patients: The Changing Clientele of State Hospitals,”American Journal of Psychiatry, 135:816-820 (July 1978).
41.
41. Henry J. Steadman, Beating a Rap? Defendants Incompetent to Stand Trial (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981).
42.
42. Gore A. Smith and James A. Hill, “Evaluating Michigan's Guilty but Mentally Ill Verdict: An Empirical Study,”Journal of Law Reform, 16:75-112 (Fall 1982).
43.
43. Lynn W. Blunt and H. V. Stock, “Guilty but Mentally Ill: The Michigan Experience,” (Paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Portland, OR, Oct. 1983).
44.
44. Rita J. Simon, The Jury and the Defense of Insanity (Boston: Little, Brown, 1967).
45.
45. Richard A. Pasewark, Robert L. Randolph, and Stephen Bieber, “Insanity Plea: Statutory Language and Trial Procedures” (Paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Denver, CO, Nov. 1983).
46.
46. Ibid., p. 13.
47.
47. Michael Criss and D. Robert Racine, “Impact of Change in Legal Standard for Those Adjudicated Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity 1975-1979,”Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 8:261-271 (1980).
48.
48. Cyril Greenland, “Crime and the Insanity Defense, an International Comparison: Ontario and New York State,”Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 7:128-138 (1979).
