John Hinckley, Jr. and the Insanity Defense: The Public's Verdict

Public furor over the Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity verdict in the trial of John Hinckley, Jr. already has stimulated legal changes in the insanity defense. This study documents more systematically the dimensions of negative public opinion concerning the Hinckley verdict. A survey of Delaware residents shortly after the trial's conclusion indicated that the verdict was perceived as unfair, Hinckley was viewed as not insane, the psychiatrists' testimony at the trial was not trusted, and the vast majority thought that the insanity defense was a loophole. However, survey respondents were unable to define the legal test for insanity and thought Hinckley would be confined only a short period of time, contrary to the estimates of experts. These findings, in conjunction with other research showing the public is not well informed about the insanity defense, underscore the importance of examining determinants of opinion about the insanity defense before additional reform is undertaken. Valerie P. Hans is an Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice and Psychology, and Dan Slater is an Assistant Professor of Communication, at the University of Delaware. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Valerie P. Hans, Division of Criminal Justice, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19711. Public Opinion Quarterly Vol. 47.202-212 ? 1983 by the Trustees of Columbia University Published by Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. 0033-362X/83/0047-202/$2.50 This content downloaded from 157.55.39.27 on Wed, 07 Sep 2016 05:29:05 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms HINCKLEY AND THE INSANITY DEFENSE 203 Delaware legislature passed a law providing a Guilty But Mentally Ill verdict alternative in insanity cases. Proposals to abolish or restrict the insanity verdict are before legislatures in other states, and the White House has announced its plan for revision of the insanity defense (Hoffman, 1982; Philadelphia Inquirer, 1982; Putzel, 1982; New York Times, 1982a). The Hinckley trial promises to be a benchmark in the reform of the insanity defense. The purpose of the study reported here is to provide a more complete account of public opinion about the Hinckley trial and insanity defense. In an attempt to understand the determinants of reactions to the trial, the paper also explores demographic and attitudinal correlates of opinions about the Hinckley verdict. Previous research on perceptions of the insanity defense is sparse, but the available literature indicates that the public always has taken a dim view of the defense (e.g., Moran, 1981). Public opinion polls consistently have shown that a majority of Americans believe the insanity defense is a loophole that allows too many guilty people to go free (Bronson, 1970; Fitzgerald and Ellsworth, 1980; Harris, 1971). Perhaps as a consequence of this perception, the reluctance of juries to find defendants NGRI is legendary. More detailed analyses of perceptions of the insanity defense or the criminally insane show decidedly negative attitudes but widespread misconceptions (Howell, 1982; Pasewark, 1981; Steadman and Cocozza, 1977). Therefore, we expected our survey to reveal: (1) considerable negativity about the insanity defense in general, and the Hinckley verdict in particular, and (2) poor to moderate knowledge about the insanity defense.