91172.pdf

136 5 Court and the Legal System—Adult Forensics

FORENSIC VERDICTS OR PSYCHIATRIC JUSTICE:

NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF INSANITY AND

GUILTY BUT MENTALLY ILL

Introduction

The insanity defense has long been a debated issue within psychology, the legal
system, and society in general. Melton ct al. (1987) have referred to the defense of
insanity as "probably the most controversial issue in all of criminal law" (p. 112),
While society and the law have historically been inclined to treat rather than punish
mentally ill offenders, there are nevertheless a plethora of arguments that encourage
an alteration in the legal system's present philosophy toward insanity and crime.
Such strong opposition to the defense of insanity is founded upon several notable
cases in which societal perception was that justice was not done. In addition, there
are several problems with the insanity defense as it stands. These problems encourage
the perspective that such defenses should be at the very least modified, if not entirely
eliminated, while other alternatives should be implemented.
One such alternative was established in the 1970s and is referred to as the Guilty
but Mentally 111 (GBMI) verdict. Thus, GBMI is not a defense per se, but a verdict;
that is reached wherein the defendant is found guilty, but his or her need for
treatment is acknowledged. The GBMI verdict, however, has also had its critics.
In addition to the proposal of a GBMI verdict and in response to the perceived
inadequacy of the Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI) defense, several states
have adopted other alternatives. Montana, for example, has completely eliminated
the insanity defense. In this section, we explore the purpose of the insanity defense
and the different variations of "insanity" and tests for insanity as well as several of
the proposed alternatives.

On March 30, 1981, John Hinckley, Jr. attempted to assassinate the then-President

of the United States, Ronald Reagan. Hinckley was apprehended and, a little over a

year later, went to trial for his actions. One of the psychiatrists in the case offered the

opinion that Hinckley was unable to control himself (i.e., that he did not know what

he was doing). Hinckley s attorneys invoked the defense of insanity. It was argued that

Hinckley was driven to action by the movie ''Taxi Driver" in which the lead character

stalks and attempts to assassinate the President in an effort "win over" the 12-year-old

prostitute played by Jodie Foster. Hinckley is said to have seen the movie numerous times

and become infatuated with the '"hero" of the movie to the degree that he was driven

to reenact the events of the movie in real life.

I he expert witnesses (mental health professionals) in the case were in general agree-

ment that Hinckley suffered from schizophrenia. Hinckley's defense argued that if some-

one can be so influenced by a movie as to reenact those events in his real lite, he must not

be in a rational frame of mind and therefore should not be held responsible for his actions.

His attorneys agreed with the prosecution in conceding that Hinckley had planned the

attack (therefore establishing premeditation and a presumably "sound" mind), yet they

claimed his entire "plan" was based on the movie and that he was acting upon forces

that resulted from a diseased mind. Several months later, the jury returned the verdict

of NGRI.