The ability of mental health experts to consult on insanity cases is highly dependent on their accurate understanding of the current Canadian standard. The study surveyed experienced forensic psychiatrists and psychologists and found the majority (88%) had erroneous beliefs regarding the insanity standard. Results of a discriminant analysis suggest that experience with insanity evaluations and courtroom testimony may improve experts' understanding. Implications of these results are discussed with respect to professional training and public policy.
References
1.
RogersR.Conducting insanity evaluations.New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold,1986.
2.
WalkerN.Crime and insanity in England: the historical perspective.Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1968.
3.
SimonR.A.The jury and the defense of insanity.Boston: Little, Brown, 1967.
4.
DixG.E.Criminal responsibility and mental impairment in American criminal law: response to the Hinckley acquittal in historical perspective. In: WeisstubD.N., ed. Law and mental health: international perspective.New York: Pergamon, 1984.
5.
Standing Committee on Association Standards for Criminal Justice.Criminal justice and mental health standards.Chicago: American Bar Association, 1984.
6.
American Psychiatric Association.American Psychiatric Association statement on the insanity defense.Am J Psychiatry1983; 140: 681–688.
7.
KeilitzI.Researching and reforming the insanity defense. In: BrooksA.D., WinickB., eds. Mental health law in the 80's.New York: Guilford, forthcoming.
8.
RogersR., TurnerR.E.Understanding insanity: a national survey of forensic psychiatrists and psychologists.Health Law in Canada1987; 7: 71–75.
9.
NieN.H.SPSSx User's Guide.New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1983.
10.
Regina v. Rabey (1977), 37 C.C.C. (2d) 461 (Ont. C.A.) (aff'd by Supreme Court of Canada in a majority judgement pronounced July 18, 1980).
11.
Cooper v. The Queen (1980), 51 C.C.C. (2d) 129.
12.
Kjeldsen v. The Queen (1981), 64 C.C.C. (2d) 161.
13.
Report of the Royal Commission on the Law of Insanity as a Defence in Criminal Cases (McRuer Report).Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1956.
14.
Regina v. Craig (1974), 22 C.C.C. (2d) 212; [1975] 2 W.W.R. 314.
15.
Regina v. Simpson (1977), 35 C.C.C. (2d) 337 (Ont. C.A.).
16.
R. v. Cracknell (1931), O.R. 634 (C.A.).
17.
R. v. O. (1959), 3 Crim. L. Q. 151 (Ont. H. Ct.).
18.
R. v. Harrop (1940), 3 W.W.R. 77 (Man. C.A.).
19.
Schwartz v. The Queen (1976), 34 C.R.N.S. 138.
20.
Queen v. Chaulk and Morrissette (1987), Manitoba Supreme Bench.
21.
BartolC.R.Psychology and American Law.Belmont, CA: Wodsworth, 1983.
22.
HaneyC.Psychology and legal change: on the limits of factual jurisprudence.Law Hum Behav1980; 4: 147–200.
23.
Arboleda-FlorezJ.Insanity defence in Canada.Can Psychiatr Assoc J1978; 23(1): 23–27.
24.
OrchardB.C.L.Insanity: a psychiatrist's view of the recent rulings of the Supreme Court of Canada.Supreme Court Law Rev1981; 2: 405–410.
KeilitzI., FultonJ.P.The insanity defense and its alternatives: a guide to policy makers.Williamsburg, VA: National Center for States Courts, 1983.
27.
WeisstubD.N.Law and psychiatry in the Canadian context.New York: Pergamon,1980.
28.
PollackS., GrossB.H., WeinbergerL.E.Principles of forensic psychiatry for reaching psychiatric-legal opinions. In: GrossB.H., WeinbergerL.E., eds. The mental health profesional and the legal system.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1982.
29.
Queen v. Barnier (1980), 51 C.C.C. (2d) 193.
30.
SharpeG.S.Mental disorder project: criminal law review, final report.Ottawa: Department of Justice, 1985.
