NCJ Number
107909
Journal
Catholic Univeristy Law Review Volume: 35 Issue: 4 Dated: (Summer 1986) Pages: 961-1020
Date Published
1986
Length
60 pages
Annotation
Some of the recent proposals for reforms in the laws concerning the commitment of persons acquitted under the insanity defense contain features that are ill-considered, while others have features that should be adopted by State legislatures.
Abstract
Following the verdict in the Hinckley trial, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Bar Association, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, and a commission convened by the National Mental Health Association all formulated positions on the disposition of such defendants. In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling on some of the constitutional issues involved in committing insanity acquittees, and the U.S. Congress passed the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984. Other models are found in the Model Penal Code, Oregon's use of a Psychiatric Security Review Board, and the recommendations of the National Commission on the Insanity Defense. Legislatures considering the various proposals should avoid commitment systems that rely on presumptions of dangerousness that are not empirically justifiable or that rest on fear of future property offenses. They should also reject suggestions that acquittees can be confined in prisons or prison-like settings if treatment is not being provided. However, the Oregon model, which uses a psychiatric review board instead of courts to make commitment and release decisions, will be attractive to some States. In addition, the American Bar Association's Criminal Justice Mental Health Standards represents a balanced approach to the problem of committing insanity acquittees. 307 footnotes.