Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law

linguistic minorities. The establishment of state and

federal training and certification procedures ensures

that courts handle such cases in a consistent and impar-

tial manner. Furthermore, programs allowing for con-

tract interpreters and telephone interpreting in districts

where no certified interpreters are available are impor-

tant steps to facilitate due process for all defendants. In

addition to training court interpreters consistently,

training for legal professionals such as judges and

attorneys may allow for a better understanding of the

special challenges associated with such cases. This

type of training will generate greater awareness of the

rights of defendants and the responsibilities of feder-

ally certified interpreters.

The fact that jurors are prepared to treat defen-

dants who testify in the official language of trials

(English) differently from those who do not is dis-

turbing. Regardless of the quality of the interpreta-

tion, the fact that interpretation is provided at all

seems to be an influential factor in the outcome of

cases. At a minimum, courts may need to provide

additional instruction to jurors to set aside their

beliefs about those who do not testify in English. If

jurors are instructed that the language of testimony

is not to be included in consideration of the mean-

ing and importance of facts presented in evidence,

they may be able to hold their predilections in

abeyance, and equal treatment can be given to all

defendants.

Brooke A. Smith, Larissa A. Schmersal,

and Harmon M. Hosch

See alsoProcedural Justice; Race, Impact on Juries;

Sentencing Decisions

Further Readings

Berk-Seligson, S. (1990). The bilingual courtroom.Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Hovland, D. L. (1993). Errors in interpretation: Why plain

error is not plain. Law and Inequality: A Journal of

Theory and Practice, 11,473–503.

Laster, K., & Taylor, V. (1999). Interpreters and the legal

system. Leichhardt, New South Wales, Australia:

Federation Press.

Stephan, C. W., & Stephan, W. G. (1986). Habla ingles?

The effects of language translation on simulated juror

decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,

16,577–589.

TREATMENT ANDRELEASE

OFINSANITYACQUITTEES

For more than one and a half centuries, from the

first insanity defense commitment of John Hadfield

in England in 1800 through the mid-1960s, insane

defendants (those not guilty by reason of insanity, or

NGRIs) were automatically and indefinitely com-

mitted to a secure psychiatric facility until the state

determined that they could be released. Until the

mid-1960s, most were never released regardless of

their crime. Treatment for NGRIs then and today

mirrors the standard psychiatric treatment of the

time—ranging from simple confinement in pretreat-

ment eras to increasingly more sophisticated inter-

ventions such as those available starting in the

1950s. Today, most people found that NGRIs in the

United States and elsewhere have a major mental

disorder such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder,

and their treatments are at least initially as inpa-

tients in a public psychiatric hospital. Due to legal

changes from the 1970s onward, states that take cus-

tody of this population must also provide them with

medical and mental health care whether they are

inside or outside the hospital.

The Role of the Physician

Mental illness has for centuries been considered a mit-

igating circumstance in criminal behavior. Beginning

in England in 1760, physicians specializing in mad-

ness have testified before the court that an individual’s

criminal responsibility could be diminished due to

mental state. While such testimony was not an insanity

defense per se, the early role of the physician as a court

expert established medicine’s domain, which contin-

ues today in many criminal trials throughout the world.

Few defendants are found not criminally responsible

without psychiatric testimony, confirming the long-

held view that mental disorder is a medical illness and

that responsibility for treatment lies with the medical

profession. Today, while psychologists and social

workers are included in evaluation, treatment planning,

and service delivery, it remains the physician’s respon-

sibility to decide whether a defendant is mentally ill, to

prescribe medications—the treatment of choice, and to

recommend the confinement or release of an insane

defendant.

Treatment and Release of Insanity Acquittees——— 811

T-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:44 PM Page 811