Misplaced Pages

Insanity Defense Reform Act

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
(Redirected from Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984)

US forensic pathology-related Congress Act of 1984
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Insanity Defense Reform Act" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (May 2014) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

The Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 (IDRA) was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan on October 12, 1984, amending the United States federal laws governing defendants with mental diseases or defects to make it significantly more difficult to obtain a verdict of not guilty only by reason of insanity.

Act

The act removed the volitional component, that a defendant lacked capacity to conform their conduct to the law, from the ALI test. Defendants were exculpated only if "at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, ... as the result of a severe mental disease or defect, unable to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of acts." The law passed in the wake of public outrage after John Hinckley Jr.'s acquittal by reason of insanity in June 1982 for his attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan.

Prior to the enactment of the law, the federal standard for "insanity" was that the government had to prove a defendant's sanity beyond a reasonable doubt (assuming the insanity defense was raised). Following the Act's enactment, the defendant has the burden of proving insanity by "clear and convincing evidence". Furthermore, expert witnesses for either side are prohibited from testifying directly as to whether the defendant was legally sane or not, but can only testify as to their mental health and capacities, with the question of sanity itself to be decided by the finder-of-fact at trial. The Act was held to be constitutional (and the change in standards and burdens of proof are discussed) in United States v. Freeman.

The Defense Reform Act was criticized by psychologist Lawrence Z. Freedman for being ineffective: "If the attacker is rational mentally, stable emotionally, and fanatic politically, he will not be deterred. Nor will an irrational, affectively disturbed individual be deterred."

References

  1. United States Department of Justice, Criminal Resource Manual, Retrieved May 7, 2018
  2. ^ Criminal Law - Cases and Materials, 7th ed. 2012, Wolters Kluwer; John Kaplan, Robert Weisberg, Guyora Binder, ISBN 978-1-4548-0698-1,
  3. ^ United States v. Freeman, 804 F. 2d 1574 (11th Cir. 1986).
  4. Lawrence Zelic Freedman (March 1983), "The Politics of Insanity: Law, Crime, and Human Responsibility", Political Psychology, 4 (1): 171–178, doi:10.2307/3791182, JSTOR 3791182

External links

Categories: