Click download link to download full text.
Description: Contrary to popular belief, the insanity defense is rarely used; it is tough to win; the Constitution probably requires that it be available to qualified defendants, and defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI, NGI, NRRI) may spend more time in mental hospitals than they would have spent incarcerated had they been found guilty. The purpose of the insanity defense is related to a very old, well-tested requirement for finding defendants guilty: the prosecution must prove not only that the alleged act was committed, but that the act was committed in a criminal way. "Taking" is not the same as "stealing"; "killing" is not the same as "murder." In general, for a crime to be committed, the actor must intend to commit a crime.
Suggested Citation:
Reid, W. H. (2006). Sanity Evaluations and Criminal Responsibility [Electronic Version]. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice,
2(3), 114-146.
Keywords:
Date: Sep 29, 2006 | File Size: 122.08 Kb | Downloads: 2609