Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 20, 2026

Vision Training Methods for Sports Concussion Mitigation and Management
Published on: May 5, 2015
Arizona's Insanity Defense, Clark, and the 2007 Legislature
Joseph D Bloom1, Scott E Kirkorsky2
1Dr. Bloom is Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Dr. Kirkorsky is a psychiatrist and Assistant Clinical Professor, Department of Psychiatry, University of Arizona College of Medicine-Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ. bloomj@ohsu.edu.
Abstract:
In the post-Hinckley era, four states (Montana, Idaho, Utah, and Kansas) abolished their traditional insanity statutes in 1979 in favor of what are in certain circumstances mens rea insanity statutes. These changes were controversial and attracted early attention of legal scholars and courts in the individual states and at the U.S. Supreme Court. A 2006 Supreme Court decision in Clark v. Arizona had distinct but related concerns that helped crystallize the Court's attention on both mens rea and traditional insanity defense statutes. This decision led to a dramatic precedent that may have settled these matters for generations to come. This article will discuss the changes in the Arizona statutory and case law and the interplay between these changes and the important decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court during the same time span. The result of the changes has led to a situation in Arizona where, for the most serious criminal defendants with mental illness, there is no current mechanism to acquit a defendant on the basis of insanity by a mens rea statute or otherwise.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
The Stanford Prison Experiment
Torts I
Intentional...
Torts II
Torts III
Quasi-intentional torts in healthcare involve acts where intent is not directed to harm an individual but results in harm due to careless or reckless speech.
Psychosis: Goals of Pharmacotherapy
Limit Laws II

