This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by BROOKS, A. D. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

The Merits of Abolishing the Insanity Defense

Discontent with the special insanity defense has resulted in pressure on legislatures and courts to change or abolish it. Most reformers urge modifications that they hope will rectify obvious abuses. This article examines the most frequently advanced moderate reforms and compares them to a more radical reform, the so-called abolition of the special insanity defense, which involves the use of the mens rea—or intent—approach as a vehicle for exculpating offenders who are seriously mentally ill, together with a greater emphasis on the dispositional stage of the process. It is argued that abolition of the insanity defense is neither immoral nor inhumane, as is often charged, if it is accompanied by such dispositional reforms. Rather, the elimination of an expanded insanity defense would result in restoring confidence in the criminal justice system and in psychiatry, would eliminate show trials, and would provide a more rational allocation of scarce mental health resources, with ultimate benefit both to the individual offender and to society.

The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 477, No. 1, 125-136 (1985)
DOI: 10.1177/0002716285477001012


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?