Criminal Responsibility and Mental Impairment in American Criminal Law - Response to the Hinckley Acquittal in Historical Perspective (From Law and Mental Health - International Perspectives, Volume 1, P 1-44, 1984, David N Weisstub, ed. - See NCJ-100647)

• NCJ Number: 100648
• Author(s): G E Dix
• Date Published: 1984
• Length: 44 pages
• Sale Source: Pergamon Press
• Publication Type: Historical Overview
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

An analysis of reactions to John Hinckley's acquittal in the historical context of American criminal law concludes that the major result of this decision is a trend toward abandoning volitional impairment as a basis for the insanity defense.

Abstract

American criminal responsibility law traditionally has emphasized the availability of the insanity defense, debating whether the defense should be available upon proof that an offender was impaired but only in such a manner as affected the individual's capacity to control his or her conduct. Some jurisdictions also relied on evidence of psychological abnormality to establish that the defendant did not act with mens rea. The Hinckley acquittal generated considerable discussion of these issues, but attention was focused on the practical realities of various responsibility doctrines rather than their philosophical foundations. While the acquittal produced little long-term enthusiasm for abandoning any insanity defense, several jurisdictions did adopt guilty but mentally ill options. Overall, discussions following the Hinckley trial added little substance to the criminal responsibility law debate. A trend toward abandoning volitional impairment can be perceived, based on the perception that present clinical skills do not permit accurate identification of offenders who were so impaired as to make their conviction inappropriate. Over 100 references. (Author abstract modified)