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 MORSE, S. J. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Retaining a Modified Insanity Defense

The insanity defense must be retained because it is fundamentally just. Some mentally disordered defendants are so irrational at the time of their offenses that they lack the basic preconditions of moral responsibility, and therefore they must be excused. Retaining the insanity defense will not compromise public safety, nor will abolishing it lead to the remedying of associated social problems such as the substandard mental health care in jails and prisons. Nevertheless, there are real problems with the administration of the defense that must be addressed. The substantive tests must be revised, the burden of persuasion should be put on the defendant, the role of experts should be limited, and post-acquittal procedures must be made more rational. Impatience with the practical problems, which can be ameliorated by sensible reforms, should not cause society to abandon a basically fair doctrine.

The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 477, No. 1, 137-147 (1985)
DOI: 10.1177/0002716285477001013


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