The Insanity Defense: An Alternative Outcome to Punishment

• In Event: Mental Health and Competency Issues in Court

Abstract

Insanity adjudication is based on the principle that mentally ill offenders are not morally culpable for crimes that occurred as a result of inability to rationally understand the nature of their conduct or conform that conduct to the law. Reasons for the deprivation of civil liberty after an insanity judgment are different than those for incarceration. Rationales for prison detention after a guilty judgment are retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and protection of society by incapacitation. Rationales for the deprivation of civil liberty after an insanity judgment are mental illness rehabilitation and protection of society by means of commitment to a mental hospital or other restrictions. Accordingly, insanity adjudication provides an alternative outcome to punishment for some acts caused by mental illness. In Oregon, insanity acquittees are placed under the jurisdiction of one of three oversight bodies for a specific period of time or released from all supervision earlier (jurisdictional discharge). Some insanity acquittees are committed to a hospital with plans for future community release, some are immediately released to live in the community, and some are returned to the hospital as necessary. This current research analyzes all jurisdictional discharges from January 2012 through December 2015, recidivism rates, and other population characteristics.

Authors

• Alison Burke, Southern Oregon University

• Stephanie Maya Lopez, Oregon Health and Science University