| Abstract: | The question of the insanity defense centers around the moralist-determinist debate. Insanity defense laws are premised on the assumption that individuals choose between right and wrong, and are responsible for that choice. Mental disease, however, can overpower, and thus, not of their own volition, insane persons become out-of-control. Hence, they cannot be held responsible for their behavior or subject to criminal punishment. It is the purpose of the insanity defense, of course, to distinguish between offenders in need of punitive disposition and ones where a medical-custodial disposition is best. The research presented here indicates that defendants who successfully raise the plea of NGRI do not beat the rap. In other words, they do not spend fewer days in confinement via an NGRI plea than had they been convicted and sentenced. Thus, for the reasons of justice, equity, and fairness the insanity defense should be kept intact. The wave of public fear and reaction to the decision in a few highly publicized cases is insufficient grounds for eliminating the plea. Not only is the use of the insanity defense infrequent, but defendants who select it give up important safeguards. Namely, they are unable to plea bargain, are stigmatized as "mad and bad," have no access to probation or parole, and are confined for an indeterminate amount of time. That some would call this leniency we find surprising. And, of course, we should not forget the findings reported here. NGRI acquittees spend more time being locked up. Defendants who successfully raise the NGRI plea are confined until professionals say they are no longer dangerous.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS) |
