NCJ Number
92059
Date Published
1983
Length
28 pages
Annotation
After reviewing the historical background of the insanity defense and exploring the current state of this defense in the United States, this article identifies problems with procedures after being found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI); model legislation is presented to correct these problems.
Abstract
Currently, in most States, once a defendant has been successful with an insanity defense plea, the options available to the criminal court judge are limited. In a few States, commitment to a mental health facility for some period is automatic. In most States, the court must hold a hearing or request the prosecutor to petition for a hearing using the same standard of civil commitment as is used in the mental health code. In almost every State, the present system for dealing with the person found NGRI makes it difficult if not impossible for the criminal court to ensure public safety. Major problems are that the NGRI person must meet the civil commitment standard, the court is limited to either civil commitment or discharge, and in most States no option exists for court imposed outpatient treatment. Moveover, there are no provisions for review of the discharge decision in the majority of States. The proposed model law deals with these problems by treating the NGRI person differently at the time of commitment by using a broader standard of commitment. The appendixes present State-by-State summaries of tests used to determine criminal responsibility and procedures followed after an NGRI verdict.