Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Punishment or treatment?

Comparing the lengths of confinement of successful and unsuccessful insanity defendants

  • Articles
  • Published:
Law and Human Behavior

Abstract

Although there is strong support among the general public for providing insanity acquittees with mental health treatment, it is also believed that insanity acquittees should be punished when they break the law. Prior studies of the lengths of confinement of insanity acquittees have yielded inconsistent results. This article draws upon a large-scale, multistate study of insanity pleas to explore the question: Is society able to withhold punishment against persons acquitted of criminal charges due to insanity? Results indicate that offense seriousness is a more important factor than mental disorder in determining the lengths of confinement of persons foundNot Guilty by Reason of Insanity and that persons found guilty are more likely to be released without ever having been confined than persons acquited by reason of insanity. Implications for invoking offense seriousness as a primary criterion in assessments of dangerousness are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allison, P. D. (1984).Event history analysis: Regression for longitudinal event data. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Bar Association Criminal Justice and Mental Health Standards (1989). Project of the American Bar Association Criminal Justice Standards Committee, Washington, DC.

  • American Psychiatric Association (1987).Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed) Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blossfeld, H., Mamerle, A., & Meyer, K. U. (1989).Event history analysis: Statistical theory and application in the social sciences. Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braff, J., Arvinites, T., & Steadman, H. J. (1983). Detention patterns of successful and unsuccessful insanity defendants.Criminology, 21, 439–448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dumont, M. P. (1987). A diagnostic parable.Readings: A journal of reviews and commentary in mental health, 2, 9–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hans, V. P. (1986). An analysis of public attitudes toward the insanity defense.Criminology, 4, 393–415.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Cormier, C. A. (1991). Length of detention in matched groups of insanity acquittees and convicted offenders.International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 14, 223–236.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, M. W., & Raifman, L. (1981). Hospitalization versus imprisonment and the insanity plea.Criminal Justice and Behavior, 8, 483–490.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, N. (1982).Madness and the criminal law. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pantle, M. L., Pasewark, R. A., & Steadman, H. J. (1980). Comparing institutionalization periods and subsequent arrests of insanity acquittees and convicted felons.Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 8, 305–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pasewark, R. A., Pantle, M. L., & Steadman, H. J. (1982). Detention and rearrest rates of persons found not guilty by reason of insanity and convicted felons.American Journal of Psychiatry, 139, 892–897.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, B. L., & Pasewark, R. A. (1980). Insanity plea in Connecticut.Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 36, 305–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pogrebin, M., Regoli, R., & Perry, K. (1986). Not guilty by reason of insanity: A research note.International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 8, 237–241.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Quinsey, V., & Maguire, A. (1986). Maximum security psychiatric patients: Actuarial and clinical predictions of dangerousness.Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1, 143–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reisner, R., & Slobogin, C. (1990).Law and the mental health system: Civil and criminal aspects. St. Paul, MN: West.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, P., & Witte, A. D. (1988).Predicting recidivism using survival models. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silver, E., Cirincione, C., & Steadman, H. J. (1994). Demythologizing inaccurate perceptions of the insanity defense.Law and Human Behavior, 18, 63–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steadman, H. J., McGreevy, M. A., Morrissey, J. P., Callahan, L. A., Robbins, P. C., & Cirincione, C. (1993).Before and after Hinckley: Evaluating insanity defense reform. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steadman, H. J., Pasewark, R. A., Hawkins M., Kiser, M., & Bieber, S. (1983). Hospitalization length of insanity acquittees.Journal of Clinical Psychology, 39, 611–614.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Policy Research Associates, 262 Deleware Avenue, 12054, Delmar, NY

    Eric Silver

Authors
  1. Eric Silver
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Special thanks go to Henry J. Steadman and Bonita Veysey for reviewing an earlier draft and to Nan Brady, Suzanne Morris, and Amy Storfer for providing editorial comments. I would also like to thank the reviewers of this paper, whose comments vastly improved the final product.

About this article

Cite this article

Silver, E. Punishment or treatment?. Law Hum Behav 19, 375–388 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01499138

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01499138

Keywords

Search

Navigation