U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Limiting the Insanity Defense - A Rational Approach to Irrational Crimes

NCJ Number
91550
Journal
Missouri Law Review Volume: 47 Issue: 4 Dated: (Fall 1982) Pages: 605-619
Author(s)
Anonymous
Date Published
1982
Length
15 pages
Annotation
Following a brief review of the history, current status, and major shortcomings of Federal law related to the insanity defense, this article critiques three recent legislative proposals that would change the delineation of the insanity defense, and a preferred legislative approach is explained (S. 2572).
Abstract
The conventional insanity defense has outlived its principal utility; it invites continuing expansion, is vulnerable to abuse, produces considerable litigation in attempting to accommodate psychiatric consideration into a legal framework, and forces an evaluation of subtle nuances to an all-or-nothing conclusion. Congress should act to concentrate the trial exploration of the defendant's mental state in the sole area in which it is legally meaningful, i.e., the evaluation of the mental element of the charged offense, while permitting a more even-handed disposition of the mentally borderline offender after a posttrial, presentence proceeding freed of technical evidentiary rules. Senate bill 2572 takes this approach. Under this legislation, mental disease or defect would be a defense to a prosecution under any Federal statute only if as a result of the disease or defect the defendant 'lacked the state of mind required as an element of the offense charged.' Adoption of this legislation would eliminate the insanity defense from Federal criminal trials except in those rare cases in which the defendant's mental illness precludes a finding that he/she formed the state of mind required by the pertinent penal statute as an element of the offense. Sixty-four footnotes are provided. (Author summary modified)

Downloads

No download available

Availability