Punishment or treatment?

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.     

Psycholegal treatment and intervention

In the same way that the interface of law and psychology has brought about the development of “psycholegal” assessment methods, parallel forms of psycholegal interventions are beginning to emerge as well. What distinguishes them from traditional forms of psychotherapy is that their administration requires an integration of both legal and psychological knowledge. Divorce mediation, treatment of incompetence to stand trial, and other examples are shown to fall within this new category of interventions. A conceptual model for the development of psycholegal interventions is presented. Forensic mental health professionals are urged to approach their development more systematically.