The Merits of Abolishing the Insanity Defense

Discontent with the special insanity defense has resulted in pressure on legislatures and courts to change or abolish it. Most reformers urge modifications that they hope will rectify obvious abuses. This article examines the most frequently advanced moderate reforms and compares them to a more radical reform, the so-called abolition of the special insanity defense, which involves the use of the mens rea —or intent—approach as a vehicle for exculpating offenders who are seriously mentally ill, together with a greater emphasis on the dispositional stage of the process. It is argued that abolition of the insanity defense is neither immoral nor inhumane, as is often charged, if it is accompanied by such dispositional reforms. Rather, the elimination of an expanded insanity defense would result in restoring confidence in the criminal justice system and in psychiatry, would eliminate show trials, and would provide a more rational allocation of scarce mental health resources, with ultimate benefit both to the individual offender and to society.