Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Errata

Errata Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 3, 1999 This article entitled 'Empirical Research on the Insanity Defense and At- tempted Reforms: Evidence Toward Informed Policy' by Randy Borum and Solo- mon M. Fulero originally appeared in Volume 23, Number 1 (February 1999). This article was printed with numerous references mistakenly omitted. Reprinted below is how the article should have appeared. Empirical Research on the Insanity Defense and Attempted Reforms: Evidence Toward Informed Policy Randy Borum1 and Solomon M. Fulero2 The paper addresses some common questions about the insanity defense and issues raised by commonly proposed "reforms." The first section begins with a brief descrip- tion of the insanity defense and the reasons for its existence in the law. It then examines some of the popular myths and public misperceptions surrounding the insanity de- fense. The next three sections discuss proposed "reforms" and the empirical research that addresses their effect. These reforms, including various procedural changes in definitions, burden of proof, and expert testimony, the institution of a guilty but mentally ill verdict, and the abolition of the insanity defense itself, are reviewed, along with relevant research findings and policy issues. Finally, the development of sound conditional release programs http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Law and Human Behavior American Psychological Association

Errata

Wiener, Richard L.
Law and Human Behavior , Volume 23 (3): 20 – Jun 1, 1999
Download PDF
20 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-psychological-association/errata-ucSd3DpgoX

References (46)

Publisher
American Psychological Association
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 American Psychological Association
ISSN
0147-7307
eISSN
1573-661X
DOI
10.1023/A:1022364700424
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 3, 1999 This article entitled 'Empirical Research on the Insanity Defense and At- tempted Reforms: Evidence Toward Informed Policy' by Randy Borum and Solo- mon M. Fulero originally appeared in Volume 23, Number 1 (February 1999). This article was printed with numerous references mistakenly omitted. Reprinted below is how the article should have appeared. Empirical Research on the Insanity Defense and Attempted Reforms: Evidence Toward Informed Policy Randy Borum1 and Solomon M. Fulero2 The paper addresses some common questions about the insanity defense and issues raised by commonly proposed "reforms." The first section begins with a brief descrip- tion of the insanity defense and the reasons for its existence in the law. It then examines some of the popular myths and public misperceptions surrounding the insanity de- fense. The next three sections discuss proposed "reforms" and the empirical research that addresses their effect. These reforms, including various procedural changes in definitions, burden of proof, and expert testimony, the institution of a guilty but mentally ill verdict, and the abolition of the insanity defense itself, are reviewed, along with relevant research findings and policy issues. Finally, the development of sound conditional release programs

Journal

Law and Human Behavior – American Psychological Association

Published: Jun 1, 1999

There are no references for this article.