Neuroimage evidence and the insanity defense

The introduction of neuroscientific evidence in criminal trials has given rise to fears that neuroimagery presented by an expert witness might inordinately influence jurors' evaluations of the defendant. In this experiment, a diverse sample of 1,170 community members from throughout the U.S. evaluated a written mock trial in which psychological, neuropsychological, neuroscientific, and neuroimage-based expert evidence was presented in support of a not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) defense. No evidence of an independent influence of neuroimagery was found. Overall, neuroscience-based evidence was found to be more persuasive than psychological and anecdotal family history evidence. These effects were consistent across different insanity standards. Despite the non-influence of neuroimagery, however, jurors who were not provided with a neuroimage indicated that they believed neuroimagery would have been the most helpful kind of evidence in their evaluations of the defendant.     

Pathological gambling as an insanity defense

Recognition of pathological gambling as a diagnostic and clinical entity has been paralleled by its use as an insanity defense by gamblers engaged in criminal behavior. The societal ramifications of exculpation for crimes committed by volitionally impaired defendants require a critical analysis of the relationship between mental illness and criminal acts. Following a summary of current knowledge about pathological gambling as a clinical disorder, case law relevant to its use as an insanity defense is reviewed. It is argued that pathological gambling is not a serious mental illness for the purposes of the criminal law and that it bears no causal relationship to criminal activity. Legal and societal interests dictate that pathological gambling be excluded as a potential insanity defense.     

The mental disability requirement in the insanity defense.

This paper offers a discussion of some of the nuances of mental disease or defect as required for the insanity defense in criminal law. It also compares and contrasts the mental disease or defect definitions of criminal law with those definitions used in clinical practice. It points out a general pattern of vagueness and dispute regarding the proper interpretation of the mental disability requirement in the insanity defense and in other legal provisions. It reports a variety of interpretations by courts and commentators regarding the meaning of these phrases, and it reports attempts by state legislatures to narrow the range of applicable conditions by excluding various mental or emotional states.     

Insanity defense research and treatment of insanity acquittees

This article is a comprehensive review of issues relevant to the insanity defense and the disposition of insanity acquittees. The characteristics of persons found Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI) are described. Although the locus of treatment of the NGRI acquittee varies by jurisdiction, at this time, care and detention of insanity acquittees fall mainly to state mental health agencies. Recent reforms, as they relate to locus of treatment, are reviewed and public policy issues are discussed. The author concludes that more clinical research on the insanity acquittee is necessary for the development of more informed public policy on the insanity defense.     

Use of the insanity defense: A survey of attorneys in wyoming

Attorneys in the State of Wyoming were surveyed to determine their reported use of the insanity defense during the preceding 5 years. They were asked about the success, defined as “benefit to the defendant,” of the insanity defense at various stages that occur before trial. The attorneys reported that the insanity defense is used throughout the various stages preceding trial, with more use and benefit to the defendant being reported than previously suggested. This was particularly true for the earlier stages in the criminal justice process. The attorneys were also asked various attitude questions related to the insanity defense. Defense lawyers were more in from of the insanity defense and expressed attitudes that supported the insanity defense while prosecuting attorneys were relatively more opposed to the insanity defense and expressed attitudes consistent with this view.     

The insanity defense: Legal standards and clinical assessment

Although the insanity defense is used infrequently, it has received significant attention from legal and mental health professionals. In this article, we review the historical development of insanity defense standards and describe the standards currently employed in the United States. We present a model for evaluating a defendant's mental nonresponsibility, and we briefly discuss the legal standards and procedures for the assessment of insanity acquittees for release. Throughout the article, we discuss some scientific, ethical, and jurisprudential issues associated with the insanity defense and nonresponsibility evaluations.     

The insanity defense: Historical development and present status

This article provides an overview of the historical development of the insanity defense, including a discussion of the standards which have been used to excuse someone from criminal responsibility. The legal issues raised pre-trial and at trial are presented, along with a discussion of current proposals to modify or abolish the insanity defense. The article also focuses on the disposition of insanity acquittees, including both the case and statutory law in this area. Constitutional bases for challenges to differential procedures for insanity acquittees, along with proposals to change the law relating to them are included.     

Measuring knowledge of the insanity defense: scale construction and validation

Given the influence of social conformity and prejudice, defendants pleading not guilty by reason of insanity face the significant challenges of securing fair and impartial juries. Attitudes and knowledge of the insanity defense are factors that may influence levels of impartiality. In the light of this, we set out to develop a scale to examine knowledge levels of the insanity defense and their influence on decision-making. Two studies were conducted to construct a scale designed to assess laypersons' knowledge of the insanity defense. Items measuring knowledge of the insanity defense were based on Perlin's (1995) insanity defense myths. The first study identified particular items in need of revision and subscales that required the development of additional items in order to improve reliability and construct validity in the second study. The second study used the revised scale, demonstrating improved validity and reliability. The scale also had acceptable predictive validity with reference to insanity defense verdicts.     

Homicide and the insanity defense: A comparison of sane and insane murderers

A sample of 50 homicide defendants acquitted by reason of insanity (NGRI) was compared with a group of 50 defendants who were evaluated for insanity and found to be criminally responsible (CR). Significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of prior psychiatric and criminal histories and nature of the homicide (i.e., relationship to victim). The dispositions of those found NGRI were also examined on the above variables.     

Criminal insanity

In a recent article, ‘Marxism and Radical Democracy’,¹ Femia argues that Marxism is incompatible with radical democracy. In so doing he specifically reiterates² a now common claim that the notion of scientific socialism defended by Marx and Engels and prevalent in the Second International is anti‐democratic. This claim has not only been made by critics of Marxism.³ It has been a major criticism of classical Marxism within the Western Marxist tradition, in particular” in the work of the Frankfurt School.⁴ It is one of the main reasons why the classical Marxism of Engels and the Second International has been rejected as positivist and vulgar: no modern sophisticated Marxist admits to either positivism or vulgarity. In this paper I examine and reject Femia's arguments for the claim that the notion of scientific socialism is undemocratic. I argue that the orthodox view of Marxism as a scientific theory is compatible with democracy, and indeed encourages a democratic understanding of socialism. A thoroughly vulgar Marxism is thoroughly democratic.     

Freedom and insanity

The paper describes the refusal of the liberal community to assert the right of persons accused of mental illness to be free of coercive psychiatric intrusion. It suggests that the penchant for benevolent governmental intrusion into other social problems may be at fault and recommends that intervention be abandoned in favor of a return to human autonomy as a basis of the concept of freedom.     

The competency of criminal defendants to refuse,for delusional reasons,a viable insanity defense recommended by counsel

This article addresses the issues of whether mentally ill defendants charged with serious crimes who refuse to plead a viable and counsel-recommended insanity defense for delusional reasons (but who are otherwise competent to stand trial) should be considered to be competent, or incompetent, to stand trial; whether such defendants should be allowed to represent themselves with a delusional defense; and whether an insanity defense may properly be imposed upon such defendants. Based on an analysis of relevant Supreme Court decisions and other relevant cases, it is concluded that such defendants should not be allowed to go forward with a delusional defense (at least until reasonable efforts to treat the defendants' delusions are made). It is also argued, however, that unless an insanity defense would be viable (as well as recommended by counsel) delusional defendants who are otherwise competent to stand trial should be permitted to go forward, and represent themselves, with the defense of their choosing.