NCJ Number
85999
Journal
New York Times Magazine Dated: (August 1982) Pages: 16-20
Date Published
1982
Length
5 pages
Annotation
This article critiques and suggests alternatives to reforms of the legal system proposed in the wake of public dismay at the Hinckley verdict, by which the man who shot the President was declared not guilty by reason of insanity.
Abstract
It is argued that changes to the law should not be made out of the urge to punish a particular man and that the principle of justice inherent in the insanity provision should not be abandoned. The justification for the insanity plea is that punishing the truly irresponsible person who lacks ability to control his actions serves neither to rehabilitate nor deter and constitutes revenge, the basest form of justice. Problems have arisen because the M'Naghten rule, requiring ability to distinguish right from wrong as the measure of competency, dates from the 19th century and does not reflect modern psychological insights regarding the ability to control one's actions. The Hinckley case exemplified the dilemma of a lay jury in determining competency based on conflicting testimony by expert witnesses offering opinions rather than facts. Suggestions for alleviating these problems are for the provision of better jury instructions and for court-appointed expert panels to judge competency. A new verdict -- guilty, but mentally ill -- may confuse juries with a third alternative and would require adequate treatment provisions for those convicted under this category, but it merits experimentation. It may be possible to combine the verdict of guilty but mentally ill with measures to relieve juries of responsibility for deciphering psychiatric testimony. Juries might then determine if the defendant understood the nature of his act and judges would be responsible for applying the insanity standard to determine if the defendant is mentally capable of conforming his conduct to the requirements of the law. Modifications to the rules concerning burden of proof, which now require the State to prove the defendant's sanity beyond reasonable doubt, are also advised. Photographs are given.