The Merits of Abolishing the Insanity Defense

Alexander D. Brooks

The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1985, vol. 477, issue 1, 125-136

Abstract: Discontent with the special insanity defense has resulted in pressure on legislatures and courts to change or abolish it. Most reformers urge modifications that they hope will rectify obvious abuses. This article examines the most frequently advanced moderate reforms and compares them to a more radical reform, the so-called abolition of the special insanity defense, which involves the use of the mens rea —or intent—approach as a vehicle for exculpating offenders who are seriously mentally ill, together with a greater emphasis on the dispositional stage of the process. It is argued that abolition of the insanity defense is neither immoral nor inhumane, as is often charged, if it is accompanied by such dispositional reforms. Rather, the elimination of an expanded insanity defense would result in restoring confidence in the criminal justice system and in psychiatry, would eliminate show trials, and would provide a more rational allocation of scarce mental health resources, with ultimate benefit both to the individual offender and to society.

Date: 1985
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0002716285477001012 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:anname:v:477:y:1985:i:1:p:125-136

DOI: 10.1177/0002716285477001012

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().