Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
M. Perlin (1994)
Law and mental disability
R. Miller (1994)
Principles and practice of forsensic psychiatry
M. Burton, H. Steadman (1983)
Legal professionals' perceptions of the insanity defenseJournal of Psychiatry and Law, 6
A. Dershowitz (1994)
The abuse excuse and other cop-outs, sob stories, and evasions of responsibility
J. Ogloff (1991)
A comparison of insanity defense standards on juror decision makingLaw and Human Behavior, 15
(1962)
Model penal code
G. Melton, J. Petrila, N. Polythress, C. Slobogin (1997)
Psychological evaluations for the courts
Black's (1991)
Black's law dictionary
E. Silver (1995)
Punishment or treatment: Comparing the lengths of confinement of successful and unsuccessful insanity defendantsLaw and Human Behavior, 19
I. Keilitz, D. Farthing-Copowich, B. McGraw, L. Adams (1984)
The guilty but mentally ill verdict: An empirical test
H. Steadman, M. McGreevy, J. Morrissey, L. Callahan, P. Robbins, C. Cirincione (1993)
Before and after Hinckley: Evaluating insanity defense reform
B. McGraw, D. Farthing-Capowich, I. Keilitz (1985)
The guilty but mentally ill pleas and verdict: Current state of the knowledgeVillanova Law Review, 30
B. Weiner (1985)
The mentally disabled and the law
R. Wettstein, E. Mulvey, R. Rogers (1991)
A prospective comparison of four insanity defense standardsAmerican Journal of Psychiatry, 148
L. A. Callahan, M. A. McGreevy, C. Cirincione, H. J. Steadman (1992)
Measuring the effects of the guilty but mentally ill (GBMI) verdict: Georgia'a 1982 GBMI reformLaw and Human Behavior, 16
N. Finkel, S. Fulero (1992)
Insanity: Making law in the absense of evidenceInternational Journal of Medicine and Law, 11
E. Silver, C. Cirincione, H. Steadman (1994)
Demythologizing inaccurate perceptions of the insanity defenseLaw and Human Behavior, 18
S. Reynolds (1984)
Battle of the experts revised: 1983 Oregon legislation on the insanity defenseWillamette Law Review, 20
M. Weidranders (1992)
Recidivism of disordered offenders who were conditionally vs. unconditionally releasedBehavioral Sciences and the Law, 10
C. Cirincione, H. Steadman, M. McGreevy (1995)
Rates of insanity acquittals and the factors associated with successful insanity pleasBulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 23
R. Pasewark, H. McGinley (1986)
Insanity plea: National survey of frequency and successJournal of Psychiatry and Law, 13
C. Slobogin (1985)
The guilty but mentally ill verdict: An idea whose time should not have comeGeorge Washington University Law Review, 53
R. Pasewark, M. Pantle, H. Steadman (1982)
Detention and rearrest rates of persons found not guilty by reason of insanity and convicted felonsAmerican Journal of Psychiatry, 139
R. Pasewark, B. Parnell, J. Rock (1994)
Insanity defense: Shifting the burden of proofJournal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 10
R. James (1959)
Jurors' assessment of criminal responsibilitySocial Problems, 7
N. Finkel (1989)
The Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984: Much ado about nothingBehavioral Sciences and Law, 7
M. McGreevy, H. Steadman, L. Callahan (1991)
The negligible effects of California's 1982 reform of the insanity defenseAmerican Journal of Psychiatry, 148
R. Simon, D. Aaronson (1988)
The insanity defense: A critical assessment of law and policy in the post-Hinckley era
R. Arens, D. Granfield, J. Susman (1965)
Juries, juror charges, and insanityCatholic University Law Review, 14
N. Finkel, R. Shaw, S. Bercaw, J. Koch (1985)
Insanity defenses: From the jurors' perspectiveLaw and Psychology Review, 9
N. Finkel (1991)
The insanity defense: A comparison of verdict schemasLaw and Human Behavior, 15
J. Monahan (1973)
Abolish the insanity defense?-Not yetRutgers Law Review, 26
A. Elwork, B. Sales (1985)
The psychology of evidence and trial procedure
P. Heinbecker (1986)
Two years' experience under Utah's mens rea insanity lawBulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 14
M. Perlin (1995)
Refusal to hear challenge to insanity abolition statute fuels speculation as to Supreme Court's “hidden agenda.”Report on Mental Disability Law, 1
R. Pasewark, M. Pantle, H. Steadman (1979)
The insanity plea in New York State, 1965–1976New York State Bar Journal, 53
M. Perlin (1987)
Mental disability law: Civil and criminal (§ 15.09)
H. Steadman, L. Keitner, J. Braff, T. Aravanites (1983)
Factors associated with a successful insanity pleaAmerican Journal of Psychiatry, 140
S. Fulero, N. Finkel (1991)
Barring ultimate issue testimony: An “insane” rule?Law and Human Behavior, 15
J. Rodriguez, L. LeWinn, M. Perlin (1983)
The insanity defense under siege: Legislative assaults and legal rejoindersRutgers Law Journal, 14
S. Kadish (1968)
The decline of innocenceCambridge Law Review, 26
H. Steadman, J. Braff (1983)
Mentally disordered offenders: Perspectives from law and social science
A. Elwork, J. Alfini, B. Sales (1987)
In the jury box: Controversies in the courtroom
R. Bonnie (1983)
The moral basis of the insanity defenseAmerican Bar Association Journal, 69
B. Sales, T. Hafemeister (1984)
Mental health and criminal justice
A. Robey (1978)
Guilty but mentally illBulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 6
The paper addresses some common questions about the insanity defense and issues raised by commonly proposed “reforms.” The first section begins with a brief description 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 defense. 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 for criminal defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity is proposed as a reform option which could serve the objectives of enhancing public safety and access to appropriate treatment while continuing to meet the objectives of the insanity defense within criminal jurisprudence.
Law and Human Behavior – Springer Journals
Published: Sep 30, 2004
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.