91172.pdf

140 5 Court and the Legal System—Adult Forensics

NGRI. In such cases, the defendant is sentenced for the crime committed, but

spends the sentence in a hospital until sanity is restored. If and when such a time

arrives that the defendant is perceived to have regained her or his sanity, the person is

transported to prison to serve the remainder of the sentence. Generally speaking, the

public is often less likely to oppose a finding of GBMI. Presumably, this perception

of justice being served has, to some extent, a relationship to the fact that the offender

has been found guilty of his or her crime in one way or another. Thus, had John

Hinckley, Jr. been found GBMI rather than NGRI perhaps the public would have

rested more content.

One of the more common criticisms of the insanity defense concerns its reliance

on expert testimony. That is, the disposition of cases in which insanity is an issue

is placed in the hands of psychologists and psychiatrists who ultimately influence

the jurors' opinions as to the defendant's mental state at the time of the offense.

This controversy raises important issues regarding the extent to which psychology

is and should be involved in the legal process. Critics argue that psychologists are

often unsuccessful in evaluations of insanity. This criticism often stems from the fact

that psychologists are asked to provide opinions, which are potentially extremely

influential in court, on matters in which they hold little understanding. In other

words, psychologists are often untrained or undertrained in legal matters. This very

point, perhaps, marks an intersection for the field of forensic psychology. Justice,

it would appear, necessitates an understanding of both the legal and psychological

disciplines when treating cases such as those employing the insanity defense. Until

recently, this cross-disciplinary training has been essentially nonexistent. With the

advent of programs stressing both psychology and law (i.e., forensic psychology),

the system of justice may be turning in this direction.

Suggestions for Future Research

Given that criticism concerning the insanity defense often targets the role of psy-
chology in the legal process, it seems necessary to ascertain the effectiveness of such
involvement. In other words, are psychologists helping to inform justice or merely
interfering with justice? This raises important issues for future research in the field.
In particular, it may be helpful to understand to what extent forensic psychologists
can improve upon the previous wedding of psychology to the legal system. Does
forensic psychology have something to offer that traditional psychology does not?
Additionally, the efficacy of insanity defense reform and proposals for reform
must be examined in more depth. As mentioned, several states have adopted al-
ternative policies including the GBMI verdict. Some states have taken it upon
themselves to create their own standards for determining sanity. Are such alterna-
tives more successful in the eyes of the law? The public? Justice? These questions
are not neanng resolution and must be further examined in light of continuing
developments.