NCJ Number
105044
Journal
Military Law Review Volume: 114 Dated: (Fall 1986) Pages: 183-224
Date Published
1986
Length
42 pages
Annotation
This article reviews pre-existing insanity defense law, examines changes resulting from the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984, and discusses the proposed amendment to the Uniform Code of Military Justice incorporating salient provisions of the 1984 Federal law.
Abstract
The trial and subsequent acquittal of John W. Hinckley Jr. for the attempted assassination of President Reagan highlighted major deficiencies in existing law: the definition of the defense was overbroad, placing the burden of proof on the Government resulted in too many acquittals, and there was too much latitude in the use of expert witnesses. The 1984 reform redressed these weaknesses and also set forth postacquittal commitment procedures. The proposed defense of lack of mental responsibility would affect the military justice system in much the same way as the Federal changes. The definition of insanity is narrower, and the volitional element has been deleted. The burden of proof of insanity by clear and convincing evidence is placed on the defendant. In addition, the proposed amendment adopts a bifurcated voting system by which panel members vote on guilt or innocence; then, if they determine the accused is guilty, vote on the issue of insanity. While these reforms reflect careful consideration of the rights of defendants while also addressing public concern for protection from dangerous individuals, they contain some problem areas that will have to be resolved through litigation. The proposed military amendment is appended. 207 footnotes.