Forensic Verdicts or Psychiatric Justice 139responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental
disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the [wrongtulness]
of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law" (Model
Penal Code, Section 4.01, as cited in Melancon, 1998, p. 293). The All Test
includes both a cognitive component (lack of appreciation for wrongfulness) and a
volitional component (unable to control behavior). Thus, it is widely recognized
as being advantageous over either the M'Naughten or the Durham Tests. Further,
the ALI Test's focus on "substantial incapacity" is thought more realistic than a
necessary showing of total incapacity as is necessary with M'Naughten.
Forensic Psychology and Policy Implications
After the verdict reached in the Hinckley case, the issue of insanity assumed one
of the more controversial roles in American legal history. The American public
generally felt that justice had not been served in what they perceived as letting
the man who attempted to assassinate the President "go free" (H. Steadman et al.,
1993). In fact, Hinckley s acquittal, as with any successful insanity defense, is not
grounds for immediate release back into society. Rather, the offender found not
guilty by reason of insanity is confined to a mental hospital for an indeterminate
length of time. It is rare that such offenders are released from the hospital short of
several years, and many remain there for most (if not all) of their lives. The criteria
for release in these cases are far more restrictive than other cases of commitment
(L. Wrightsman et al., 1994). In fact, it is not uncommon for an insanity acquitee
to serve more time in a psychiatric hospital than he or she would have served in
prison had the jury returned a guilty verdict.
The primary beliefs of the public concerning the insanity defense are that crim-
inals often employ the defense; many of these criminals are "set free" by naive
juries; those found NGRI are released back into society after the trial; and such
persons present a threat to society, as they are dangerous and once again "on the
streets" (Melton et al., 1987). Public outcry, however misinformed it may be, places
a tremendous amount of pressure on the justice system to revise its handling of these
cases. In fact, the reality of the insanity defense is much different than the public
generally believes. The insanity defense is employed in only about 1 out of every
200 criminal cases. Of these, it is successful less than 1% of the time (L. Wrightsman
etaL, 1994).
The basis of the misconception that such acquitees "go free" is, perhaps, the
use of the phrase "not guilty" with regard to the insanity defense. In response to
such public outcry, some states have implemented the GBMI verdict. The primary
difference with regard to the GBMI verdict concerns the finding of "guilty" rather
than "not guilty." In states allowing for a finding of GBMI, the defendant generally
pleads insanity, but the jury has the option ot finding him or her GBMI rather than