Abstract
The United States Supreme Court's decision making on the Jones v. United States issue of an insanity acquit tee's disposition, when his mental hospitalization exceeds his maximum prison sentence if convicted, is analyzed from the perspective of relevant behavioral science research. The Court's “common sense” that insanity acquittal reflects a likelihood of remaining mentally ill and in need of treatment is not sustained by the available empirical evidence. The Court's assertion of no necessary correlation between acquittee offense severity and length of recovery is also belied by the available research. The Supreme Court has ratified social judgments concerning insanity acquittees rather than utilizing available behavioral research to make more rational policy determinations. The statistically insignificant insanity acquittal disposition could be assessed from a more informed perspective.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.