Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law

Further Readings

MacLin, O. H., Meissner, C. A., & Zimmerman, L. A.

(2005). PC_Eyewitness: Administration and applications

for research in eyewitness identification psychology.

Behavior Research Methods, 37,324–334.

MacLin, O. H., & Phelan, C. (in press). PC_Eyewitness:

Evaluating the New Jersey method. Behavior Research

Methods.

MacLin, O. H., Zimmerman, L. A., & Malpass, R. S. (2005).

PC_Eyewitness and the sequential superiority effect:

Computer based lineup administration. Law & Human

Behavior, 29(3), 303–321.

CONDITIONALRELEASEPROGRAMS

Conditional release programs for persons acquitted by

reason of insanity (not guilty by reason of insanity or

NGRI) are designed to maximize public safety while

meeting the courts’ mandate that some individual liber-

ties be protected. These programs developed as a result

of the state and federal court decisions in the 1960s,

which required that this population be provided with

commitment procedures similar to civil commitment.

Prior to these decisions, persons found NGRI were

given an automatic, indefinite “life sentence” to maxi-

mum-security state psychiatric hospitals for crimes

ranging from shoplifting to murder. Under the new

laws, persons committed as NGRI had to meet the com-

mitment requirements of civil patients—that is, mental

illness and dangerousness. Their continued commit-

ment had to be periodically reviewed, and if they no

longer met the commitment standards, they were to be

released. Concerned with releasing what were believed

to be “dangerous” offenders with mental illness into the

community, states created a new category of posthospi-

talization supervision—conditional release. Research

suggests that both goals were met in that insanity

acquittees no longer languished in hospitals with no

hope of being released and those who remained danger-

ous and mentally ill remained in a secure facility.

The other major watershed event that affected the

insanity defense, especially release procedures, was

the NGRI acquittal of John Hinckley from the charge

of attempting to assassinate President Ronald Reagan

in 1981. Following Hinckley’s 1982 acquittal, the most

common type of legal change in this area of law was in

postacquittal procedures. Most states responded by

providing shared responsibility between the trial court

and the clinicians responsible for the day-to-day inpa-

tient treatment of the committed population. Until

then, hospital clinicians or the county court where the

hospital was located had made the release decisions.

Hinckley’s acquittal further decreased the already

declining popularity of the insanity defense among the

public. He eventually received a number of 1-day con-

ditional releases under the supervision of his parents in

2003, more than 22 years after his actions. His release

was widely opposed by the victims’ families, the

Justice Department, and many others.

Conditional release programs are often referred to

as “mental health parole or probation,” but they signif-

icantly differ from traditional criminal justice after-

care supervision. The major differences between the

two types of programs are in the length of the super-

vision period, the due process requirements for revo-

cation, and the agency responsible for supervision. In

most states, conditional release can be extended for

any number of reasons, including clinical concerns,

such as medication compliance; safety concerns; and

lack of adequate community placement. For most

parolees or probationers, their supervision time is

finite. A few states limit the duration of conditional

release to the maximum sentence that would have

been given by the court had the defendant been con-

victed, reducing the utility of conditional release for

less serious offenders. More often, conditional release

is a relatively unrestrained and extensive period of

community supervision and consequently makes the

insanity defense a lesser plea and outcome.

Revocation of conditional release is less difficult

than in the criminal justice system. Few states require

a formal due process hearing to revoke conditional

release, unlike criminal justice postrelease programs.

Typically, conditional release can be revoked if the

individual simply violates any term of the release.

While some states have in place more procedural safe-

guards, they are still minimal compared with other

aftercare programs. A final difference that highlights

the special circumstances of the population acquitted

NGRI is in the agency responsible for supervision.

These programs often bisect the mental health and

criminal justice systems due to the legal status of per-

sons acquitted NGRI. Because an insanity plea is an

affirmative defense, defendants admit to factual guilt

but are legally not responsible due to lack of mens rea.

Consequently, while their treatment and confinement

are provided within the mental health system across

all states, their release might be controlled to some

132 ———Conditional Release Programs

C-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:41 PM Page 132