Related Experiment Videos
Not guilty by reason of insanity: a research note
International Journal of Law and Psychiatry
|January 1, 1986
Summary
The insanity defense (NGRI) plea does not result in shorter confinement. Defendants pleading NGRI often serve longer periods, highlighting its necessity for justice and fairness.
Area of Science:
- Forensic Psychology
- Legal Psychology
- Criminal Justice
Background:
- The insanity defense is rooted in the moralist-determinist debate.
- It assumes individuals are responsible for choosing between right and wrong.
- Mental illness can impair volitional control, challenging criminal responsibility.
Purpose of the Study:
- To investigate whether Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI) pleas lead to reduced confinement durations.
- To provide evidence-based insights into the consequences of the insanity defense.
- To inform the debate on retaining or eliminating the insanity defense.
Main Methods:
- Comparative analysis of confinement lengths for NGRI acquittees versus conventionally convicted defendants.
- Examination of legal safeguards relinquished by defendants utilizing the NGRI plea.
Main Results:
- Defendants successfully pleading NGRI do not serve less time in confinement.
- NGRI acquittees often experience longer periods of incarceration.
- Successful NGRI pleas result in indeterminate confinement until deemed no longer dangerous.
Conclusions:
- The insanity defense should be preserved for reasons of justice, equity, and fairness.
- Public reaction to high-profile cases should not dictate policy changes regarding the insanity defense.
- Defendants using the NGRI plea forfeit plea bargaining, probation, parole, and face significant stigma.