Literature DB >> 19727300

Legal insanity: assessment of the inability to refrain.

Andrew Donohue1, Vinay Arya, Lawrence Fitch, Debra Hammen.   

Abstract

Maryland's test for a finding of legal insanity (not criminally responsible [NCR]) allows a defendant to be found legally insane due to either a lack of appreciation of wrongfulness (cognitive impairment [CI]) or lack of ability to refrain from illegal behavior (volitional impairment [VI]). During a four-year period, 1,446 defendants underwent in-depth (post screening) evaluations for the NCR plea at Maryland state hospitals. Of the 416 defendants assessed as NCR by the hospitals' court-appointed evaluators, 44 (11%) were assessed as NCR due to VI alone. Diagnostically, the VI and CI groups were similar. Criminal charges were also similar, but the VI group was more likely to have been charged with murder. Many of the forensic evaluators concluded that the VI group was unable to refrain from illegal conduct based on considering a number of factors, including psychiatric symptoms and the defendant's behavior as related to the offense. Some evaluators' reports offered an opinion, but did not adequately explain what data they used to arrive at their conclusion. This paper examines the history of and rationale for a volitional test of insanity and how it is assessed by forensic evaluators.

Entities:  

Keywords:  insanity defense; irresistible impulse; not guilty by reason of insanity

Year:  2008        PMID: 19727300      PMCID: PMC2710106     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychiatry (Edgmont)        ISSN: 1550-5952


  13 in total

1.  A mind to blame: new views on involuntary acts.

Authors:  Deborah W Denno
Journal:  Behav Sci Law       Date:  2003

2.  Rates of insanity acquittals and the factors associated with successful insanity pleas.

Authors:  C Cirincione; H J Steadman; M A McGreevy
Journal:  Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law       Date:  1995

3.  Insanity defense pleas in Baltimore City: an analysis of outcome.

Authors:  J S Janofsky; M H Dunn; E J Roskes; J K Briskin; M S Rudolph
Journal:  Am J Psychiatry       Date:  1996-11       Impact factor: 18.112

4.  United States v. Lyons: toward a new conception of legal insanity.

Authors:  D Mossman
Journal:  Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law       Date:  1988

5.  Defendants pleading insanity: an analysis of outcome.

Authors:  J S Janofsky; M B Vandewalle; J R Rappeport
Journal:  Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law       Date:  1989

6.  APA's position on the insanity defense. Empiricism versus emotionalism.

Authors:  R Rogers
Journal:  Am Psychol       Date:  1987-09

7.  Dissection of the prongs of ALI. A retrospective assessment of criminal responsibility by the psychiatric staff of the Clifton T. Perkins Hospital Center.

Authors:  S B Silver; M K Spodak
Journal:  Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law       Date:  1983

8.  Causation, compulsion, and involuntariness.

Authors:  S J Morse
Journal:  Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law       Date:  1994

9.  The relationship between insight and control in obsessive-compulsive disorder: implications for the insanity defense.

Authors:  M Rotter; W Goodman
Journal:  Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law       Date:  1993

10.  AAPL practice guideline for forensic psychiatric evaluation of defendants raising the insanity defense. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.

Authors:  Deborah Giorgi-Guarnieri; Jeffrey Janofsky; Emily Keram; Sarah Lawsky; Philip Merideth; Douglas Mossman; Donna Schwart-Watts; Charles Scott; John Thompson; Howard Zonana
Journal:  J Am Acad Psychiatry Law       Date:  2002
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.