Advertisement

The Adjudication of Criminal Responsibility: A Review of Theory and Research

  • Stephen L. Golding

Abstract

The attribution of criminal responsibility has been a central problem of social policy and moral philosophy that antedates the formal mechanism of the “insanity defense.” After placing the attribution of criminal responsibility in historical perspective, this chapter develops the modern versions of the insanity defense and then identifies a set of principle psychological perspectives for study of the insanity defense.

Keywords

Mental Health Professional Criminal Responsibility Prior Hospitalization Model Penal Code Insanity Defense 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abelson, R.P. (1988). Conviction. American Psychologist, 43, 267–275.Google Scholar
  2. Addington v. State of Texas, 99 S. Ct. 1804 (1979).Google Scholar
  3. American Law Institute. (1962). Model penal code. Philadelphia: Author.Google Scholar
  4. Arnold’s Case 16 How. St. Tr. 695 (1724).Google Scholar
  5. Avison, W.R., & Speechley, K.N. (1987). The discharged psychiatric patient: A review of social, social-psychological, and psychiatric correlates of outcome. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 10–18.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Ballantine, H.W. (1919). Criminal responsibility of the insane and feeble-minded. Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology, 9, 485–499.Google Scholar
  7. Beasley, W.R. (1983). An overview of Michigan’s guilty but mentally ill verdict. Michigan Bar Journal, 62, 204–205, 215–217.Google Scholar
  8. Beckham, J.C., Annis, L.V., & Gustafson D.J. (1989). Decision making and examiner bias in forensic expert recommendations for not guility by reason of insanity. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 79–87.Google Scholar
  9. Bieber, S.L., Pasewark, R.A., Bosten, K., & Steadman H.J. (1988). Predicting criminal recidivism of insanity acquittées. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 11, 105–112.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Bloom, J.D., Faulkner, L., Shore, J.H., & Rogers J.L. (1983). The young adult chronic patients and the legal system: A systems analysis. In D.L. Cutler (Ed.), Effective aftercare for the 1980 y s: New directions for mental health services, (pp. 37–51) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  11. Bloom, J.D., Rogers, J.L., & Manson, S. (1982). After Oregon’s insanity defense: A comparison of conditional release and hospitalization. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 5, 391–402.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Bloom, J.D., Rogers, J.L., Manson, S.M., & Williams M.H. (1986). Lifetime police contacts of discharged Psychiatric Security Review Board clients. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 8, 189–202.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Boehnert, C.E. (1989). Characteristics of successful and unsuccessful insanity pleas. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 31–39.Google Scholar
  14. Bogenberger, R., Pasewark, R.A., Gudeman, H., & Beiber S.L. (1987). Follow-up of insanity acquittées in Hawaii. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 10, 283–295.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Bonnie, R.J. (1983). The moral basis of the insanity defense. American Bar Association Journal, 69, 194–197.Google Scholar
  16. Braff, J., Arvanities, T., & Steadman, H. (1983). Detention patterns of successful and unsuccessful insanity defendants. Criminology, 21, 439–449.Google Scholar
  17. Callahan, L., Mayer, C., & Steadman, H. (1987). Insanity defense reform in the United States— Post-Hinckley. Mental and Physical Disability Law Reporter, 11, 54–59.Google Scholar
  18. Cavanaugh, J.L., & Wasyliw, O.E. (1985). Treating the not guilty by reason of insanity outpatient: A two year study. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 13, 407–415.Google Scholar
  19. Cohen, D. (1988). Punishing the insane: Restriction of expert psychiatric testimony by Federal Rule of Evidence 704 (b). University of Florida Law Review, 40, 541–562.Google Scholar
  20. Cohen, M.I., Spodak, M.K., Silver, S.B., & Williams K. (1988). Predicting outcome of insanity acquittées released to the community. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 6, 515–530.Google Scholar
  21. Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1986).Google Scholar
  22. Cooke, G., & Sikorski, C.R. (1974). Factors affecting length of hospitalization in persons adjudicated not guilty by reason of insanity. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 2, 251–261.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Criss, M.L., & Racine, D.R. (1980). Impact and change in legal standard for those adjudicated not guilty by reason of insanity 1975–1979. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 8, 261–271.Google Scholar
  24. Crotty, H.D. (1924). The history of insanity as a defence to crime in English criminal law. California Law Review, 12, 105–123.Google Scholar
  25. Durham v. United States, 214 F.2d 862 (D.C. Cir. 1954).Google Scholar
  26. Ellsworth, P.C., Bukaty, R.M., Cowan, C.L., & Thompson, W.C. (1984). The death-qualified jury and the defense of insanity. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 81–93.Google Scholar
  27. Faust, D., & Ziskin, J. (1988). The expert witness in psychology and psychiatry. Science, 241, 31–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Federal Rules of Evidence 704(b).Google Scholar
  29. Finkel, N.J. (1989). The Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984: Much ado about nothing. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 7, 403–419.Google Scholar
  30. Finkel, N.J., & Handel, S.F. (1989). How jurors construe “insanity.” Law and Human Behavior, 13, 41–59.Google Scholar
  31. Fukunaga, K., Pasewark, R., Hawkins, M., & Gudeman, H. (1981). Insanity plea: Interexaminer agreement and concordance of psychiatric opinion and court verdict. Law and Human Behavior, 5, 325–328.Google Scholar
  32. Golding, S.L. (1990). Mental health professionals and the courts: The ethics of expertise. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 13, 281–307.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Golding, S.L., Eaves, D., & Kowaz A. (1989). The assessment, treatment and community outcome of insanity acquittées: Forensic history and response to treatment. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 12, 149–179.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Golding, S.L., & Roesch, R. (1987). The assessment of criminal responsibility: A historical approach to a current controversy. In I.B. Weiner & A.K. Hess (Eds.), Handbook of forensic psychology (pp. 395–436). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  35. Golding, S.L., Valone, K.E., & Foster, S.W. (1982). Interpersonal construal: An individual differences framework. In N. Hirschberg & L. Humphreys (Eds.), Multivariate applications in the social sciences (pp. 163–193). New York: Wilegd Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  36. Gray, S. (1972). The insanity defense: Historical development and contemporary relevance. American Criminal Law Review, 10, 559–583.Google Scholar
  37. Guy, W.A. (1869). On insanity and crime—and on the plea of insanity in criminal cases. Royal Statistical Society (London Journal Series A), (pp. 159–191).Google Scholar
  38. Hans, V.P. (1986). An analysis of public attitudes toward the insanity defense. Criminology, 24, 393–414.Google Scholar
  39. Hans, V.P., & Slater, D. (1983). John Hinckley, Jr. and the insanity defense: The public’s verdict. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 202–212.Google Scholar
  40. Hartstone, E., Steadman, H.J., & Monahan, J. (1982). Vitek and beyond: The empirical context of prison-to-hospital transfers. Law and Contemporary Problems, 45, 125–136.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Heilbrun, K., Heilbrun, P.G., & Griffin, N. (1988). Comparing females acquitted by reason of insanity, convicted, and civilly committed in Florida: 1977–1984. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 295–311.Google Scholar
  42. Hermann, D.H.J. (1983). The insanity defense: Philosophical, historical, and legal perspectives. Springfield, Ill.: C. C. Thomas.Google Scholar
  43. Hermann, K.H.J., & Sor, Y.S. (1983). Convicting or confining? Alternative directions in insanity law reform: Guilty but mentally ill versus new rules for release of insanity acquittées. Brigham Young University Law Review, 1983, 499–638.Google Scholar
  44. Hiday, V.A. (1988). Civil commitment: A review of empirical research. Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 6, 15–43.Google Scholar
  45. Homant, R.J., & Kennedy, D.B. (1986). Judgment of legal insanity as a function of attitude toward the insanity defense. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 9, 67–81.Google Scholar
  46. Homant, R.J., & Kennedy, D.B. (1987). Subjective factors in clinicians’ judgments of insanity: Comparison of a hypothetical case and an actual case. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 18, 439–446.Google Scholar
  47. Howard, R.C., & Clark, C.R. (1985). When courts and experts disagree: Discordance between insanity recommendations and adjudications. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 385–395.Google Scholar
  48. Illinois revised statutes. (1983). Chapter 38, Sections 6–2, 115–1 to 115–4, 115–6.Google Scholar
  49. Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984. (1984). Public Law 98–473, sections 401–406.Google Scholar
  50. Janofsky, J.S., Vandewalle, M.B., & Rappeport, J.R. (1989) Defendants pleading insanity: An analysis of outcome. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry & Law, 17, 203–211.Google Scholar
  51. Jeffrey, R.W., Pasewark, R.A., & Bieber S. (1988). Insanity plea: Predicting not guilty by reason of insanity adjudications. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 16, 35–40.Google Scholar
  52. Jones v. United States, 103 S. Ct. 3043 (1983).Google Scholar
  53. Keedy, E.R. (1917). Insanity and criminal responsibility. Harvard Law Review, 30, 535–560, 724–738.Google Scholar
  54. Keilitz, I. (1987). Reforming and researching the insanity defense. Rutgers Law Review, 39, 289–322.Google Scholar
  55. Klofas, J., & Weisheit, R. (1986). Pleading guilty but mentally ill: Adversarial justice and mental health. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 9, 491–501.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Lamb, H.R., Weinberger, L.E., & Gross B.H. (1988). Court-mandated community outpatient treatment for persons found not guilty by reason of insanity: A five-year follow-up. American Journal of Psychiatry, 145, 450–456.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. McGraw, B.D., Farthing-Capowich, D., & Keilitz I. (1985). The “guilty but mentally ill” plea and verdict: Current state of the knowledge. Villanova Law Review, 30, 117–191.Google Scholar
  58. McKay, R.D., & Kopelman, J. (1988). The operation of the “guilty but mentally ill” verdict in Pennsylvania. Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 16(2), 247–268.Google Scholar
  59. Melton, G.B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N.G., & Slobogin C. (1987). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  60. Menzies, R.J. (1987). Cycles of control: The trans-carceral careers of forensic patients. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 10, 233–249.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Menzies, R.J., & Webster, C.D. (1987). Where they go and what they do: The longitudinal careers of forensic patients in the medicolegal complex. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 29, 275–293.Google Scholar
  62. Michigan compiled laws annotated. Section 330.1400a, (1982).Google Scholar
  63. Mickenberg, I. (1987). A pleasant surprise: The guilty but mentally ill verdict has both succeeded in its own right and successfully preserved the traditional role of the insanity defense. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 55, 943–996.Google Scholar
  64. M’Naghten’s Case, 8 Eng. Rep. 718 (1843).Google Scholar
  65. Morgan, D.W., McCullough, T.M., Jenkins, P.L., & White, W.M. (1988). Guilty but mentally ill: The South Carolina experience. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 16, 41–48.Google Scholar
  66. Morrissey, J.P., & Goldman, H.H. (1986). Care and treatment of the mentally ill in the United States: Historical developments and reforms. In S.A. Shah (Ed.), The law and mental health. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 484, 12–27.Google Scholar
  67. Morrow, W.R., & Peterson, D.B. (1966). Follow-up of discharged psychiatric offenders—“Not guilty by reason of insanity” and “criminal sexual psychopaths.” Journal of Criminal Law Criminology and Police Science, 57, 31–34.Google Scholar
  68. Morse, S.J. (1982). Failed explanations and criminal responsibility: Experts and the unconscious. Virginia Law Review, 68, 971–1084.Google Scholar
  69. Morse, S.J. (1985). Excusing the crazy: The insanity defense reconsidered. Southern California Law Review, 58, 777–836.Google Scholar
  70. Morse, S.J. (1986). Psychology, determinism and legal responsibility. In G.B. Melton (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Vol. 33. The law as a behavioral instrument (pp. 35–85). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  71. Morse, S.J. (1988). Treating crazy people less specially. West Virginia Law Review, 90, 353–385.Google Scholar
  72. Mulvey, E.P., Blumstein, A., & Cohen J. (1986). Reframing the research question of mental patient criminality. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 9, 57–65.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Packer, I.K. (1987). Homicide and the insanity defense: A comparison of sane and insane murders. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 5, 25–35.Google Scholar
  74. Pantle, M., Pasewark, R., & Steadman, H. (1980). Comparing institutionalization periods and subsequent arrests of insanity acquittées and convicted felons. Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 8, 305–316.Google Scholar
  75. Parry, J. (1987). The civil-criminal dichotomy in insanity commitment and release proceedings: Hinckley and other matters. Mental and Physical Disability Law Reporter, 11, 218–223.Google Scholar
  76. Pasewark, R. A. (1986). A review of research on the insanity defense. In S.A. Shah (Ed.), The law and mental health. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 484, 100–114.Google Scholar
  77. Pasewark, R.A., & McGinley, H. (1985). Insanity plea: National survey of frequency and success. Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 13(1–2), 101–108.Google Scholar
  78. Pasewark, R.A., Pantle, M.L., & Steadman H. (1979). The insanity plea in New York State, 1965–1976. New York State Bar Journal, April, 186–225.Google Scholar
  79. Pasewark, R.A., Pantle, M.L., & Steadman H. (1979). Characteristics and disposition of persons found not guilty by reason of insanity in New York State, 1971–1976. American Journal of Psychiatry, 136, 655–660.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1986). Evidence evaluation in complex decision-making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 242–258.Google Scholar
  82. People v. Marshall, 448 N.E.2d 969, 111. App. 3d (1983).Google Scholar
  83. People v. McQuillan, 221 N.W.2d 569, Supreme Court of Michigan (1974).Google Scholar
  84. Petrila, J. (1982). The insanity defense and other mental health dispositions in Missouri. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 5, 81–101.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Phillips, B.L., & Pasewark, R.A. (1980). Insanity plea in Connecticut. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 8, 335–344.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. Piatt, A.M., & Diamond, B.L. (1965). The origins and development of the “wild beast” concept of mental illness and its relation to theories of criminal responsibility. Journal of Historical and Behavioral Science, 1, 355–367.Google Scholar
  87. Piatt, A.M., & Diamond, B.L. (1966). The origins of the “right and wrong” test of criminal responsibility and its subsequent development in the United States: An historical survey. California Law Review, 54, 1227–1259.Google Scholar
  88. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. Pollock, F., & Maitland, F. (1952). History of English Law (Vol. 1, 2nd ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  90. Resnick, P.J. (1986). Perceptions of psychiatric testimony: A historical perspective on the hysterical invective. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 14, 203–219.Google Scholar
  91. Roberts, C., & Golding, S.L. (1991, in press). The social construction of criminal responsibility and insanity, Law and Human Behavior. Google Scholar
  92. Roberts, C., Golding, S.L., & Fincham, F. (1987). Implicit theories of criminal responsibility: Decision making and the insanith defense. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 207–232.Google Scholar
  93. Roesch, R., & Golding, S.L. (1987). Defining and assessing competency to stand trial. In LB. Weiner & A.K. Hess (Eds.), Handbook of forensic psychology (pp. 378–394). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  94. Rogers, J.L., Bloom, J.D., & Manson, S.M. (1984). Insanity defenses: Contested or conceded? American Journal of Psychiatry, 141, 885–888.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. Rogers, R. (1987). Assessment of criminal responsibility: Empirical advances and unanswered questions. Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 15, 73–82.Google Scholar
  96. Rogers, R. (1988). APA’s position on the insanity defense: Empiricism versus emotionalism. American Psychologist, 42, 840–848.Google Scholar
  97. Rogers, R., & Cavanaugh, J.L. (1981). Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scales. Illinois Medical Journal, 160, 164–169.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. Rogers, R., Cavanaugh, J.L., Seman, W., & Harris, M. (1984). Legal outcome and clinical findings: A study of insanity evaluations. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 12, 75–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. Rogers, R. & Ewing, C.P. (1989). The ultimate opinion proscription: A cosmetic fix and a plea for empiricism. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 357–374.Google Scholar
  100. Rogers, R., Seeman, W., & Clark C.R. (1986). Assessment of criminal responsibility: Initial validation of the R-CRAS with the M’Naghten and GBMI standards. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 9, 67–75.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. Rogers, R., Wasyliw, O.E., & Cavanaugh, J.L. (1984). Evaluating insanity: A study of construct validity. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 293–304.Google Scholar
  102. Rogers, R., & Zimbarg, R. (1987). Antisocial backgrounds of defendants evaluated for insanity: A research note. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 10, 75–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. Savitsky, J.C., & Lindblom, W.D. (1986). The impact of the guilty but mentally ill verdict on juror decisions: An empirical analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 686–701.Google Scholar
  104. Sayre, F.B. (1932). Mens rea. Harvard Law Review, 45, 974–1026.Google Scholar
  105. Shah, S.A. (1986). Criminal responsibility. In A.L. McGarry, S.A. Shah, & W.J. Curran (Eds.), Forensic psychiatry and psychology: Perspectives and standards for interdisciplinary practice (pp. 167–208). Philadelphia: F. A. Davis.Google Scholar
  106. Slobogin, C., Melton, G.B., & Showalter, C.R. (1984). The feasibility of a brief evaluation of mental state at the time of offense. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 305–321.Google Scholar
  107. Smith, G.A., & Hall, J.A. (1982). Evaluating Michigan’s guilty but mentally ill verdict: An empirical study. Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 76, 75–112.Google Scholar
  108. Smith, R. (1981). Trial by medicine: Insanity and responsibility in Victorian trials. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  109. Spodak, M.K., Silver, S.B., & Wright C.U. (1984). Criminality of discharged insanity acquittées: Fifteen year experience in Maryland reviewed. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 12, 373–382.Google Scholar
  110. State v. Pike, 49 N. H. 399, Sup. Ct. N.H. (1869).Google Scholar
  111. State v. Strasburg, 110 p. 1020, Sup. Ct. Wash. (1910).Google Scholar
  112. Steadman, H.J. (1987). Mental health law and the criminal offender: Research directions for the. 1990’s. Rutgers Law Review, 39, 323–337.Google Scholar
  113. Steadman, H.J., & Braff, J.J. (1983). Defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity. In J. Monahan & H. Steadman (Eds.), Mentally disordered offenders: Perspectives from law and social science, (pp. 109–129). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  114. Steadman, H.J., Callahan, L.A., Robbins, P.C., & Morrissey J.P. (1989). Maintenance of an insanity defense under Montana’s “abolition” of the insanity defense. American Journal of Psychiatry, 146, 357–360.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  115. Steadman, H.J., Keitner, L., Braff, J., & Arvanities, M.A. (1983). Factors associated with a successful insanity plea. American Journal of Psychiatry, 140, 401–405.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  116. Steadman, H.J., & Morrissey, J.P. (1986). The insanity defense: Problems and prospects for studying the impact of legal reforms. In S.A. Shah (Ed.), The law and mental health. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 484, 115–126.Google Scholar
  117. Stock, H.V., & Poythress, N.G. (1979, August). Psychologists 1 opinions on competency and sanity: How reliable? Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, New York.Google Scholar
  118. Stroud, D.A. (1914). Mens rea or imputability under the laws of England. London: Sweet & Maxwell.Google Scholar
  119. Trial of Lunatics Act, 46 & 47 Vict., c. 38 (1883).United States v. Brawner, 471 F.2d 969 (D.C. Cir. (1972).Google Scholar
  120. United States v. Lyons, 731 F.2d 243, Fifth Cir. (1984a).Google Scholar
  121. United States v. Lyons, 739 F.2d 994, Fifth Cir. (1984b).Google Scholar
  122. Utah v. Shickles, 760 F.2d 291, Utah Sup. Ct. (1988).Google Scholar
  123. Visher, C. (1987). Juror decision making: The importance of evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 3, 95–106.Google Scholar
  124. Walker, N. (1968). Crime and insanity in England: Vol. 1. The historical perspective. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press.Google Scholar
  125. Wyer, R.S., & Srull, T.K. (1986). Human cognition in its social context. Psychological Review, 93, 322–359.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen L. Golding

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations