The insanity defense debate has come full circle, again. The current round began when John Hinckley opened fire; in 1843, it was Daniel M'Naghten who pulled the trigger; the "acts" of both would-be "insanity acquittees" provoked the press, the populace, a President, and a Queen to expressions of outrage, and triggered Congress, the House of Lords, judges, jurists, psychologists, and psychiatrists to debate this most maddening matter. "Insanity" -which has historically been surrounded by defenses, defen ders, and detractors-found itself once again under siege, on trial, and undergoing rigorous cross-examination. Treatises were written on the sub ject, testimony was taken, and new rules and laws were adopted. The dust has settled, but it has not cleared. What is clear to me is that we have got it wrong, once again. The "full circle" analogy and historical parallel to M'Naghten (1843) warrant some elaboration. Hinckley's firing at the President, captured by television and rerun again and again, rekindled an old debate regarding the allegedly insane and punishment (Caplan, 1984; Maeder, 1985; Szasz, 1987), a debate in which the "insanity defense" is centrally situated. The smolderings ignited anew when the Hinckley (1981) jury brought in its verdict-"not guilty by reason of insanity" (NGRI).

The insanity defense is one of the oldest fixtures of the Anglo-American legal tradition. Though it is available to people charged with virtually any crime, and is often employed without controversy, homicide defendants who raise the insanity defense are often viewed by the public and even the legal system as trying to get away with murder. Often it seems that legal result of an insanity defense is unpredictable, and is determined not by the defendants mental state, but by their lawyers and psychologists influence. From the thousands of murder cases in which defendants have claimed insanity, Doctor Ewing has chosen ten of the most influential and widely varied. Some were successful in their insanity plea, while others were rejected. Some of the defendants remain household names years after the fact, like Jack Ruby, while others were never nationally publicized. Regardless of the circumstances, each case considered here was extremely controversial, hotly contested, and relied heavily on lengthy testimony by expert psychologists and psychiatrists. Several of them played a major role in shaping the criminal justice system as we know it today. In this book, Ewing skillfully conveys the psychological and legal drama of each case, while providing important and fresh professional insights. For the legal or psychological professional, as well as the interested reader, Insanity will take you into the minds of some of the most incomprehensible murderers of our age.

This book, published in 1984, tells of the insanity defense in English and American law and of the trial of John Hinckley, Jr., in 1982 for the shooting of Reagan and three others on 30 Mar 1981. Recounts the proceedings of Hinckley's trial for the attempted assassination of President Reagan, traces the history of the insanity plea, and argues for the continued use of that defense.

In this brilliant study, Charles Rosenberg uses the celebrated trial of Charles Guiteau, who assassinated President Garfield in 1881, to explore insanity and criminal responsibility in the Gilded Age. Rosenberg masterfully reconstructs the courtroom battle waged by twenty-four expert witnesses who represented the two major schools of psychiatric thought of the generation immediately preceding Freud. Although the role of genetics in behavior was widely accepted, these psychiatrists fiercely debated whether heredity had predisposed Guiteau to assassinate Garfield. Rosenberg's account allows us to consider one of the opening rounds in the controversy over the criminal responsibility of the insane, a debate that still rages today.

Softbound - New, softbound print book.

Thinking About the Insanity Defense answers ninety-seven frequently asked questions and presents sixteen case examples in easily understood language. This volume provides a clear and compelling introduction to one of the most important topics in the relation between psychology and law. Compiled by members of a Harvard seminar, it directs attention to the issues most often raised by the general public and by students of social science and criminal justice. The frequently asked questions about the insanity defense address: its history and psychological aspects; the effects of different standards for determining insanity; the arguments for its retention, abolition, and revision; media and other responses to it; controversies around pre- and post-conviction commitment; and the roles of psychologists, psychiatrists, and lawyers. The case examples illustrate a variety of outcomes and include individuals who were: found not guilty by reason of insanity; found guilty even though mentally ill; and not charged because of mental illness. The extensive bibliography directs students and citizens interested in psychology, law, and criminal justice to further cases and analyses. The insanity defense is one of the most significant topics in psychoforensics. This brief and readable book is the first place to look for what most people want to know about the insanity defense.