Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984

In 1981, John W. Hinckley Jr attempted the assassintion of President Ronald Reagan. At the culmination of his trial, he was determined to be not guilty by reason of insanity and was acquitted of his crimes. This caused an uproar in the United States, as citizens called for the reform, or more favorably, the abolition of the insanity defense. On October 28, 1984, the Insanity Defense Reform Act was passed, bringing significant changes to the previously established legislature. These changes included modifying the standard of what was considered “insane”. In the present, the American Psychological Association defines insanity as “a condition of the mind that renders a person incapable of being responsible for his or her criminal acts.” This definition also states that those who are determined to be not guilty by reason of insanity are free of criminal responsibility.

The insanity defense originated in Europe with a man named Daniel M’Naughten. M’Naughten believed that individuals were following him, accusing him of crimes he didn't commit and wanted to murder him. The commissioner of police was aware that M’Naughten was experiencing these thought processes for many years before anything disastrous occurred. Because of his false beliefs, M’Naughten believed that he had to ambush and kill the prime minister, Sir Robert Peel. On the night of the attack, M’Naughten mistook Sir Peel’s secretary, Edward Drummond, for Peel himself, followed him into the street and shot and killed him in front of multiple witnesses. He was arrested on site.

After being evaluated by a number of physicians, it was determined that M’Naughten was suffering from severe delusions. It was determined that these delusions were valid; he could not be criminally responsible, therefore making him not guilty. He was then institutionalized involuntarily under the Criminal Lunatics Act of 1800 for the rest of his life. The M’Naughten test is now used to determine the mental capacity of the person at the time of the crime; it is an evaluation of whether the individual was aware of the nature and quality of the criminal acts as well as if they are able to distinguish right and wrong. There are two different types of insanity in the present: cognitive insanity and volitional insanity. Cognitive insanity is what typically comes to mind when someone thinks of insanity, this being mental illness or other defect. Volitional insanity is when a person is normally mentally healthy but for whatever reason, at the time of the crime, they are mentally unbalanced and cannot be held criminally responsible for their actions. In most places, volitional insanity is not acceptable and will not hold up with judges and juries in court .

The Insanity Defense Reform Act established a number of new guidelines. First and foremost, the burden of proof is now placed on the defendant, calling on them to provide convincing evidence that they are, in fact, unable to hold criminal responsibility . As determined by a number of tests, including the M’Naughten test, the defendant must be truly unaware of the nature of the crime as well as unable to distinguish right from wrong . Expert testimony of psychology professionals is now limited on ultimate legal issues; insanity is decided by juries, not psychology professionals . The defense of diminished capacity, which is essentially volitional insanity, was removed entirely . Furthermore, there is a rare verdict of “guilty but mentally ill. “ In this case, a person will serve a prison sentence but it is ensured that they receive appropriate mental health treatment throughout .

Public opinion about the insanity defense was dramatic and prominent following the attempted assasination of Reagan. Their cries lead to the reform of the insanity defense. Following this event, five states abolished the insanity defense . Studies have shown that perceptions of criminal sentencing and approval and support of the death penalty are closely associated with peoples view of the insanity defense. The general consensus is that people dislike the insanity defense. This is two for at least two clear reasons. One reason is that people want to see punishment for those that break laws and commit criminal acts, desiring the pursuit of justice. The other reason is that they feel that they are left unprotected by the law if the insanity defense is in place . Finally, the public holds the belief that the insanity defense is overused; it seems obvious that some individuals may try to malinger to escape harsh sentences. However, attempts to use the defense occur in only 1% of cases and only one out of four defendants actually achieve acquittals .

After Hinckley’s acquittal, the American Psychiatric Association sided with the public, looking for reform and hoping to make the defense more difficult to use . On the other hand, however, the American Psychological Association was against the abolition of the insanity defense for a number of reasons. They felt if someone was truly mentally ill, it would be immoral to persecute them. They also believed it was unnecessary to try to protect the public and the removal of the defense could potentially make results of trials unfair . It was also thought that the defense was needed to protect those who were genuinely not criminally responsible, an example being a child who accidentally sets a fire; they would never be considered an arsonist for this mistake. Finally, the American Psychological Association has stated that any reforms should be made not due to public pressure and heightened emotion but with the use of empirical studies and subsequent evidence.

#### Further Reading

1. Jeffries, J. C., Low, P. W., Bonnie, R. J. (2000). A Case Study in the Insanity Defense: The Trial of John W. Hinckley, Jr. United States: Foundation Press.
2. Vinocour, S. (2020). Nobody's Child: A Tragedy, a Trial, and a History of the Insanity Defense. United States: W. W. Norton.
3. Jacewicz, N. (2016, July 28). After Hinckley, States Tightened Use Of The Insanity Plea. *NPR*. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/07/28/486607183/after-hinckley-states-tightened-use-of-the-insanity-plea

## References

1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 *Insanity defense reform act - iresearchnet*. Psychology. (2016, May 31). Retrieved December 5, 2021, from http://psychology.iresearchnet.com/forensic-psychology/criminal-responsibility/insanity-defense-reform-act/.
2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 *634. insanity defense reform act of 1984*. The United States Department of Justice. (2020, January 22). Retrieved December 5, 2021, from https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-634-insanity-defense-reform-act-1984.
3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 American Psychological Association. (n.d.). *Apa Dictionary of Psychology*. American Psychological Association. Retrieved December 6, 2021, from https://dictionary.apa.org/insanity.
4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Asokan, T. V. (2007, July). *Daniel McNaughton (1813-1865)*. Indian journal of psychiatry. Retrieved December 5, 2021, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2902100/.
5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 Martin, J. P. (1998, February 27). *The Insanity Defense: A Closer Look*. The Washington Post. Retrieved December 5, 2021, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/aron/qa227.htm.
6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 *M'Naghten Rule*. Insanity, Criminal, Doing, and Definition - JRank Articles. (n.d.). Retrieved December 5, 2021, from https://law.jrank.org/pages/8620/M-Naghten-Rule.html.
7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 *H.R.3771 - 98th Congress (1983-1984): Insanity defense ...* Congress.gov. (n.d.). Retrieved December 5, 2021, from https://www.congress.gov/bill/98th-congress/house-bill/3771?s=1&r=99.
8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 Hans, V. P. (1986). An analysis of public attitudes toward the insanity defense\*. *Criminology*, *24*(2), 393–414. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1986.tb01502.x
9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 Rogers, R. (1987). APA's position on the insanity defense: Empiricism versus emotionalism. *American Psychologist*, *42*(9), 840–848. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.42.9.840