Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Revisiting the insanity defense: contested or consensus?

C Cirincione1

  • 1Department of Political Science, University of Connecticut, Storrs 06269-1024, USA.

The Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
|January 1, 1996
PubMed
Summary

Public perception of insanity cases is inaccurate; jury trials are rare, and acquittals are uncommon. Reforms in the 1980s significantly impacted how these legal cases are processed.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Identifying insanity acquittals: is it any easier?

Law and human behavior·1999
Same author

Rates of insanity acquittals and the factors associated with successful insanity pleas.

The Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law·1995
Same author

Schizophrenia as a contingent risk factor for criminal violence.

International journal of law and psychiatry·1992
See all related articles

Area of Science:

  • Forensic Psychology
  • Legal Studies
  • Criminology

Background:

  • Public and scholarly views on insanity case adjudication are often misinformed.
  • The frequency and outcomes of insanity defenses in legal proceedings require empirical investigation.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate the accuracy of public opinion and researcher conclusions on insanity case adjudication.
  • To determine the impact of 1980s reforms on the contestation of insanity cases.

Main Methods:

  • Analysis of data from 7,299 insanity cases across seven states.
  • Examination of adjudication methods, including jury trials and plea bargains.
  • Statistical assessment of factors influencing jury trial likelihood and acquittal rates.

Main Results:

  • Jury trials occurred in only 14.4% of insanity cases.
  • Plea bargains accounted for 42.9% of cases, with 87.9% resulting in conviction.
  • Insanity acquittals were rare, occurring in 16.1% of jury trials.
  • Jury trials were more common in violent crime cases without major mental illness diagnoses.
  • 1980s reforms demonstrably affected the processing of insanity cases.

Conclusions:

  • The study refutes common misconceptions about the prevalence of jury trials and acquittals in insanity cases.
  • Empirical evidence suggests that reforms enacted in the 1980s had a tangible effect on legal proceedings involving the insanity defense.
  • Findings underscore the need for evidence-based understanding of the legal system's handling of mental health defenses.

Related Experiment Videos