Content uploaded by Lisa Callahan
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Lisa Callahan on Mar 18, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
The Volume and Characteristics of Insanity Defense Pleas: An Eight-State Study
Abstract and Figures
The authors document the very complex process involved in identifying insanity defense pleas in eight states. Each state and each study county in each state required an individual approach. Most often, county court dockets were hand searched to identify those pleading insanity, although numerous other methodologies were used. The frequency and rate of insanity pleas and acquittals are presented for the study states as well as descriptive data on the characteristics of persons pleading and acquitted NGRI. Overall, the insanity defense was raised in one percent of all felony cases. Further, only 26 percent of those raising the insanity defense were actually acquitted NGRI. The necessity of obtaining data on insanity pleas to adequately understand and ultimately inform future directions of insanity defense research is discussed.
Figures - uploaded by Lisa Callahan
Author content
All figure content in this area was uploaded by Lisa Callahan
Content may be subject to copyright.
... There are similar findings from other countries. Previous research from other countries indicatesthat a significant number of those acquitted by reason of insanity are diagnosed with schizophrenia (e.g., Callahan, Steadman, McGreevy, & Robbins, 1991;Tsimploulis, 2018). Scholars have even pointed to psychosis as centrally relevant to a common Western idea of insanity (Moore, 2015). ...
This article raises the question of the prospect of a common approach to mentally ill offenders in Europe, through a comparative discussion of the criminal insanity rules and systems in Norway and Bulgaria. The underlying motivation is to fill a gap in current legal research where the insanity discourse is still to a certain extent nationally oriented. Bulgaria is to date not represented at all in the international discussion of criminal insanity. Starting out from recognizing the different history, rules, culture and welfare of Norway and Bulgaria, the authors argue that these countries have a similar practical understanding of insanity and how it is associated with mental disorders as well as common challenges in their forensic and legal systems. These insights can provide a basis for further comparative explorations concerning a possible harmonization of insanity law in Europe.
... Research, however, has consistently demonstrated that the insanity defense is rarely raised and, when it is, most defendants are ultimately convicted of the alleged offense. [44][45][46][47] Recent meta-analytic data indicate that experts opine a defendant is insane in about 14 percent of criminal responsibility evaluations. 47 When insanity is raised at trial, approximately 26 percent of defendants are acquitted. ...
In 1995, the Kansas legislature adopted what is referred to as the "mens rea approach" and abolished the affirmative insanity defense. This approach allows a defendant to be acquitted who lacks the requisite mental state for the crime, without consideration of the defendant's understanding of wrongfulness. In Kahler v. Kansas, the U.S. Supreme Court recently held that this restrictive approach does not violate due process and that a state is not required to adopt an insanity test which considers a defendant's moral capacity at the time of the crime. Four other states currently follow the mens rea approach, or some form of it. In this article, we first discuss a brief history of insanity defense laws in the United States. We then outline relevant legislative history and precedent in Kansas and other states that have adopted the mens rea approach. We next discuss the Supreme Court's reasoning in Kahler The significance of this test is further discussed, including Eighth Amendment considerations. We advocate for continued education of the public, legislators, and the judiciary regarding the use, application, and necessity of an affirmative insanity defense.
... Among adults, the insanity plea is most often invoked only in cases of severe mental illness (e.g., schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders; Callahan, Steadman, McGreevy, & Robbins, 1991). Given that most psychotic disorders develop in the early 20s, fewer adolescents than adults would meet the standard for the insanity defense even if the legal option were available (Rogers & Myers, 2013). ...
Adolescence is a unique time of change and challenge, when youths are set with accomplishing a multitude of developmental tasks necessary to transition to successful independent living and adult roles. Adolescents tend to be immature relative to adults in a variety of domains—biological, cognitive, emotional, social—and must undergo significant transformation in these domains before reaching maturity. One notable example (as detailed in Chapter 4, this handbook) concerns juveniles’ psychosocial immaturity—that is, deficiencies in youths’ social and emotional capacities relative to adults’. For example, adolescents are usually more impulsive, more likely to take risks, and more vulnerable to peer pressure than adults; they also tend to be more susceptible to stress and less able to weigh present benefits in the light of future consequences (Cauffman & Steinberg, 2000; Scott, Reppucci, & Woolard, 1995; Steinberg & Cauffman, 1996). These psychosocial deficiencies, compounded with still-developing cognitive faculties, contribute to adolescents’ often immature and short-sighted decision making in a variety of domains, such as engaging in risky sexual practices or reckless driving (Gardner & Steinberg, 2005).
... While research suggests that the public views this defense as overused (Perlin, 1996), it is, in reality, rarely employed. In an eight-state study by Callahan, Steadman, McGreevy, and Robbins (1991), the insanity defense was found to be raised in 1% of felony cases and, within those cases, to have been successful only 26% of the time. The public also tends to view the defense as implying that offenders deserve to be punished, despite evidence of the defendant's state of mind and the fact that an insanity plea might result in a longer sentence than a guilty verdict (Perlin, 1996). ...
Little is known about the success of the insanity defense in homicide cases involving posthumous dismemberment. Such seemingly bizarre conduct may suggest, at first glance, aberrant mental states. Drawing from a larger study of cases of single or repeat homicide followed by dismemberment on at least one occasion, we examined 38 in which offenders pleaded the insanity defense. These were compared to 30 cases in which no posthumous dismemberment was observed. Cases were drawn from print and online sources, as well as the Radford/Florida Gulf Coast Universities Serial Killer Database (SKD). Various motivations for both homicide and posthumous dismemberment among defendants who attempted to plead Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI) were analyzed.
The most common style of mutilation and dismemberment observed was aggressive, occurring in the context of excessive emotion, such as rage or acute psychosis. Among those in the dismemberment group, 52.6% of the NGRI cases proved successful. In comparison, 33.3% of the NGRI cases were successful among those in the non-dismemberment group. A relationship between NGRI outcomes and motive for homicide was observed in both comparison groups.
Our findings suggest that posthumous dismemberment may be an important characterological description in homicide offending, representing murderous impulses that may help to identify a sub-group of homicide offenders. Examination of posthumous dismemberment vis-a-vis NGRI verdicts also helps elucidate the degree to which posthumous dismemberment is, at least in some cases, a psychopathology-driven action.
... In the United States, in <1% of felony cases a defendant enters an insanity plea. Whether this plea is successful, differs considerably across jurisdictions (Callahan, Steadman, McGreevy, & Robbins, 1991;Pasewark, 1986). The legal criteria to establish insanity vary across jurisdictions. ...
Forensic mental health expertise (FMHE) is an important source of information for decision-makers in the criminal justice system. This expertise can be used in various decisions in a criminal trial, such as criminal responsibility and sentencing decisions. Despite an increasing body of empirical literature concerning FMHE, it remains largely unknown how and to what extent this expertise affects judicial decisions. The aim of this review was therefore to provide insight in the relationship between FMHE and different judicial decisions by synthesizing published, quantitative empirical studies. Based on a systematic literature search using multiple online databases and selection criteria, a total of 27 studies are included in this review. The majority of studies were experiments conducted in the US among mock jurors. Most studies focused on criminal responsibility or sentencing decisions. Studies concerning criminal responsibility found consistent results in which psychotic defendants of serious, violent crimes were considered not guilty by reason of insanity more often than defendants with psychopathic disorders. Results for length and type of sanctions were less consistent and were often affected by perceived behavioral control, recidivism risk and treatability. Studies on possible prejudicial effects of FMHE are almost non-existent. Evaluation of findings, limitations and implications for future research and practice are discussed.
This paper clarifies the conceptual space of discussion of legal insanity by considering the virtues of the ‘medical model’ model that has been used in Norway for almost a century. The medical model identifies insanity exclusively with mental disorder, and especially with psychosis, without any requirement that the disorder causally influenced the commission of the crime. We explore the medical model from a transdisciplinary perspective and show how it can be utilised to systematise and reconsider the central philosophical, legal and medical premises involved in the insanity debate. A key concern is how recent transdiagnostic and dimensional approaches to psychosis can illuminate the law's understanding of insanity and its relation to mental disorder. The authors eventually raise the question whether the medical model can be reconstructed into a unified insanity model that is valid across the related disciplinary perspectives, and that moves beyond current insanity models.
Alcohol and other substance use disorders share comorbidity with other RDS disorders, i.e. a reduction in dopamine signaling within the reward pathway. RDS is a term that connects addictive, obsessive, compulsive, and impulsive behavioral disorders. An estimated 2 million individuals in the United States have opioid use disorder related to prescription opioids. It is estimated that the overall cost of the illegal and legally prescribed opioid crisis exceeds one trillion dollars. Opioid Replacement Therapy is the most common treatment for addictions and other RDS disorders. Even after repeated relapses, patients are repeatedly prescribed the same opioid replacement treatments. A recent JAMA report indicates that non-opioid treatments fare better than chronic opioid treatments. Research demonstrates that over 50 percent of all suicides are related to alcohol or other drug use. In addition to effective fellowship programs and spirituality acceptance, nutrigenomic therapies (e.g., KB220Z) optimize gene expression, rebalance neurotransmitters, and restore neurotransmitter functional connectivity. KB220Z was shown to increase functional connectivity across specific brain regions involved in dopaminergic function. KB220/Z significantly reduces RDS behavioral disorders and relapse in human DUI offenders. Taking a Genetic Addiction Risk Severity (GARS) test combined with a the KB220Z semi-customized nutrigenomic supplement effectively restores dopamine homeostasis. (WC 199).
Combined evaluations of competence to proceed (CTP) and mental state at the time of the offense (MSO) are commonplace, yet underexamined in the literature. Given the high stakes faced by defendants and substantial arguments that can be made for and against combined evaluations, it is imperative that we understand how practitioners navigate this process. In this exploratory practitioner study (N = 43), we surveyed professional practices and beliefs concerning combined evaluations as well as how, per practitioners’ self-reports, they were influenced by jurisdictional policy. As is recommended in nascent areas of research, we undertook both quantitative and qualitative methods. Many evaluators reported a disconnect between the spirit of adjudicative competence and the combined CTP/MSO evaluation process. On the whole, evaluators reported that combined evaluations accounted for 29% of their CTP and/or MSO referrals, but only 10 (23.3%) reported that their jurisdiction specifically addressed how to conduct them. They tended to endorse that seemingly incompetent defendants cannot consent to MSO evaluations, and so MSO reports should not be submitted for these defendants. They provided some consensus that seemingly incompetent defendants can provide useful information later integrated into MSO evaluations and that CTP and MSO opinions should be documented separately. We recommend that jurisdictions include statutory language directing evaluators to refrain from submitting MSO opinions when they believe defendants are incompetent, for jurisdictions to explicitly require separate CTP and MSO reports and to distinguish disclosure rules for each report type, and further professional discussion about the nature and process of combined evaluations.
Objective:
Introduction: Ukrainian counterfeit pharmaceutical market affects pharmaceutical manufacturers' image and threatens citizens' lives and health. The aim:of the article is to identify and systematize the causes and methods of pharmacy drugs' falsification, grounding the need for certain areas of counteraction.
Patients and methods:
Materials and methods: Empirical base includes Ukrainian legislation, international acts, statistical data of the WHO, State Register of Medicinal Products of Ukraine, General Prosecutor's Office of Ukraine, Unified State Register of Court Decisions, media materials, journalistic investigations. Methodological basis is a set of general and special research methods of scientific cognition.
Conclusion:
Conclusions: Expired drugs' repackaging; production in non-licensed enterprises; replacement of drugs by non-pharmacological substances, etc. were established as the most common methods of falsifying pharmacy drugs in Ukraine. The authors systematized the reasons for uncontrolled production's growth, established distribution channels for pharmacy drugs in Ukraine and offered the most effective ways for counteracting drug falsification.
The authors examined the cohort of all defendants pleading not guilty by reason of insanity over a 12-month period in Baltimore City's superior trial court. During that time, 143 of the 11,497 defendants indicted (1.2%) pled not criminally responsible. Fourteen of those defendants (10%) were subsequently found not guilty by reason of insanity. The authors found marked agreement between the prosecution and defense with only two cases leading to full trials where the issue of insanity was argued. The evaluating physician's opinion as to criminal responsibility and Axis I diagnosis, and the most serious underlying charge discriminated between those defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity and those defendants found guilty or not guilty by the court. Other demographic factors such as age, number of dependents, educational level, severity of illness, and criminal background did not discriminate between the two groups.
Several states are changing legislation and treatment programs for mentally ill offenders without knowing how current laws and programs operate. To address this problem the authors linked data from police records, court reports, and clinical files for 2,735 psychiatric referrals from the criminal justice system of Alaska from 1977 through 1981. They found that only 0.2%-2.0% of all schizophrenic persons in the community were arrested for violent crimes each year, accounting for 1.1%-2.3% of all arrests for violent crimes; that psychiatrists agreed about competency and responsibility in 79% of the cases evaluated by more than one clinician; and that a successful insanity defense occurred in 0.1% or less of all criminal cases.
Of 133 Colorado male defendants employing the insanity plea from 1980 to 1983, 36 were adjudicated insane and 97 found guilty. Considering all defendants, they were found to be primarily single, Caucasian, somewhat older and better educated than the usual defendant group, unemployed at the time of the insane offense, and with a history characterized by chronic unemployment, prior psychiatric treatment, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, and previous arrests. Acquittees differed significantly from convicted defendants in being older and better educated. They were more likely to have been diagnosed as schizophrenic and less likely to have had a history of drug abuse. No difference was found between the groups with respect to all other variables examined, including severity of instant offense, ethnicity, and number of prior arrests.
The 50 states and the District of Columbia were surveyed for the operative insanity rule and frequency and success of the insanity plea and related alternate pleas. These data were compared with data collected for the year 1983. As in the earlier report, there seems to be a dearth of information about the use and success of the pleas. The information that is available is quite varied. There is a discussion of why basic data may not be available and what information is needed in order to have a basic understanding of the use of the insanity plea and alternate pleas.
A sample of 50 homicide defendants acquitted by reason of insanity (NGRI) was compared with a group of 50 defendants who were evaluated for insanity and found to be criminally responsible (CR). Significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of prior psychiatric and criminal histories and nature of the homicide (i.e., relationship to victim). The dispositions of those found NGRI were also examined on the above variables.
Thirty men acquitted not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) were matched on type of violent crime and compared to 30 men who unsuccessfully raised the insanity defense. Demographic, legal process, and psychological variables were compared. Eighty percent of successful acquittees previously had been found incompetent to stand trial, compared to only 33% of those found guilty and sentenced to prison. Ninety-six percent of NGRI acquittees opted for trial before a judge rather than a jury; 76% of cases raising an unsuccessful defense were heard in front of a jury. Unsuccessful attemptees also had significantly higher IQ scores and personality profiles characterized by acting-out potential and intact reality testing compared to profiles of NGRIs. The ability of the legal system to identify those meeting criteria for the insanity defense is discussed.
In 1979, Montana's insanity defense was replaced with the more restrictive mens rea defense, a change that has been described as an example of "abolition" of the insanity defense. The authors identified cases in which mental health was an issue in seven Montana counties for 3 years before and 3 years after the 1979 reform. They found that acquittals based on the insanity plea markedly declined, but that dismissals based on incompetence to stand trial increased substantially following the reform. They conclude that dismissal based on incompetence to stand trial became a substitute for acquittal based on the insanity plea under mens rea.
Using 35 variables and discriminant analysis procedures, it was found that, of 133 male defendants entering the insanity plea in Colorado, 87 percent were classified correctly into the disposition groups "adjudicated insane" and "convicted." Most positively related to an insanity adjudication were a psychiatric evaluation of insanity and a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Negatively related to the insanity verdict were diagnoses of substance use and personality disorders.
Analysis of studies reporting upon defendants using the insanity defense suggests such defendants to be generally: male, of Caucasian ethnicity, older than the typical criminal defendant, single, unskilled vocationally, having previous psychiatric hospitalization, and having a prior arrest history.