The Insanity Defense: A Critical Assessment of Law and Policy in the Post-Hinckley Era

No area of criminal law has been the subject of more controversy than the insanity defense. The Insanity Defense is a clear assessment of this issue as it exists in the 1980s. It provides the reader with a basis for understanding and evaluating the legislative and judicial responses to the factors that have stirred this controversy. Because extremely complex issues are involved in the effort to formulate an insanity defense, Simon and Aaronson begin with a detailed historical overview. They discuss the necessity of expert witnesses in the actual trial and probe into the jury's role and responsibility. The authors describe the various movements that have been used to abolish the insanity defense, as well as assess the use and interpretation of the defense in other nations.

Table of Contents:
Foreword by Judge Barrington D. Parker Introduction and Historical Review Rules of Law and Burdens of Proof: From Durham to the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 Expert Witnesses in the Insanity Defense Trials The Jury and the Insanity Defense Survey of Judges, Prosecutors, Defense Attorneys, and Mental Health Professionals Alternatives: The Movement to Abolish the Defense, and the Guilty but Mentally Ill Verdicts How Other Countries View the Insanity Defense Depictions of the Insanity Defense in Fiction and Theater Appendix: Insanity Defense Standards, Burden of Proof, and Verdict Forms Bibliography Index

About the Author :
RITA J. SIMON is Dean of the School of Justice at American University and editor of Justice Quarterly. DAVID E. AARONSON is a Professor of Law at Washington College of Law at American University.

Review :
?The attempted assassination of President Reagan by John Hinckley Jr., on March 30, 1981, and the subsequent jury finding that -- owing to reasonable doubt as to his mental state -- Hinckley should not be held criminally responsible for his actions, led Congress to enact the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984. This statute represented the first substantive treatment of the insanity defense in the federal criminal code, and is the subject of this critical assessment. Simon and Aaronson approach the issues from a variety of perspectives. These include a review of history, a comparative analysis that examines the insanity defense in other countries, an empirical analysis that provides original data from a national survey of mental health and legal experts, and a discussion of how the defense has been treated in literature and the theater. The authors conclude that the insanity defense is infrequently used, that acquittals in contested proceedings where it is used are rare, that a typical defendant who pleads insanity is not a rapist or a murderer, and that the notion that the defense is a 'rich man's defense' is not supported by the data.?-Choice ?The Insanity Defense on Trial should prove to be a valuable tool for policymakers, a practical and useful work for criminal justice practitioners, students, and anyone who seeks to better understand the debate on controversial issues concerning the defense and important changes that have taken place on federal and state levels. What is particularly useful is that the authors provide a readable yet comprehensive overview of central issues and skillfully marshall and analyze relevant data and proposals from the legal, mental health, and social science communities. A variety of perspectives are used to provide a better understanding of the issues, ranging from a historical approach, providing original empirical data from a national survey they conducted of mental health and legal experts, a comparative approach that examines the insanity defense in other countries, and even an inviting discussion as to how the defense has been treated in literature and the theater.?-Judge Barrington D. Parker United States District Court for the District of Columbia "The Insanity Defense on Trial should prove to be a valuable tool for policymakers, a practical and useful work for criminal justice practitioners, students, and anyone who seeks to better understand the debate on controversial issues concerning the defense and important changes that have taken place on federal and state levels. What is particularly useful is that the authors provide a readable yet comprehensive overview of central issues and skillfully marshall and analyze relevant data and proposals from the legal, mental health, and social science communities. A variety of perspectives are used to provide a better understanding of the issues, ranging from a historical approach, providing original empirical data from a national survey they conducted of mental health and legal experts, a comparative approach that examines the insanity defense in other countries, and even an inviting discussion as to how the defense has been treated in literature and the theater."-Judge Barrington D. Parker United States District Court for the District of Columbia "The attempted assassination of President Reagan by John Hinckley Jr., on March 30, 1981, and the subsequent jury finding that -- owing to reasonable doubt as to his mental state -- Hinckley should not be held criminally responsible for his actions, led Congress to enact the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984. This statute represented the first substantive treatment of the insanity defense in the federal criminal code, and is the subject of this critical assessment. Simon and Aaronson approach the issues from a variety of perspectives. These include a review of history, a comparative analysis that examines the insanity defense in other countries, an empirical analysis that provides original data from a national survey of mental health and legal experts, and a discussion of how the defense has been treated in literature and the theater. The authors conclude that the insanity defense is infrequently used, that acquittals in contested proceedings where it is used are rare, that a typical defendant who pleads insanity is not a rapist or a murderer, and that the notion that the defense is a 'rich man's defense' is not supported by the data."-Choice