skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 97226 Find in a Library
Title: Crime File: Insanity Defense
Series: NIJ Crime Files
Corporate Author: Police Foundation
United States of America
Date Published: 1984
Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
Washington, DC 20531
National Institute of Justice/NCJRS
Rockville, MD 20850
Police Foundation
Washington, DC 20036
US Dept of Justice NIJ Pub
Washington, DC 20531
Grant Number: 84-IJ-CX-0031
Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/NCJRS
Audiovisual Sales
Box 6000, Dept F
Rockville, MD 20850
United States of America
Document: PDF (Study Guide)|Video (28:31)
Format: Video (Online)
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This video cassette, number 18 in the Crime File series, delineates the issues associated with the insanity defense, with a particular focus on the John Hinckley, Jr., case. Three panelists are questioned by the moderator regarding the parameters of the insanity defense as it has been used and has recently been redefined in some States.
Abstract: In presenting background information on the insanity defense, the Hinckley verdict is reviewed along with public reaction to it. The successful use of the insanity defense in a Maryland case is also examined (Henry Hudson killed four members of his family). The three-member panel discusses some of the issues raised by these cases and the use of the insanity defense in general. The panel consists of Professor Norval Morris, University of Chicago Law School; D. Lowell Jensen, Associate Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice; and Dr. Jonas Rappeport, Baltimore, Md. Rappeport comments on the District of Columbia standard for legal insanity that applied in the Hinckley case, and the thrust of the psychiatric testimony for both the prosecution and the defense is compared. The conditions for Hinckley's release from the hospital are also noted. Jensen outlines recent changes in Federal law on the insanity defense: (1) the defense has the burden of proving the defendant was legally insane at the time of the crime; and (2) the defendant must have a severe mental disease or defect that rendered him/her incapable of recognizing the wrongfulness of the act at issue. Morris argues for limiting legal insanity to those persons whose mental illness makes them incapable of having the intent to kill. Rappeport counters that any intent formed out of a diseased mind should not be legally judged a criminal intent but rather the product of a sickness that should be treated and not punished. Rappeport supports the kinds of measures used in Maryland to ensure that dangerous insanity acquittees are not released from the mental hospital until their behavior and mental perceptions no longer make them a public threat.
Index Term(s): Burden of proof; Criminal intent; Criminal responsibility; Federal Code; Insanity defense; Videotapes
Note: Videocassette (3/4 inch, Beta, and VHS), 28 minutes in length, color.
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.