ABSTRACT
Insanity evaluations often evoke images of bizarre crimes with courtroom battles championed by partisan experts. Missing from these dramatized accounts is any serious consideration of the empirical knowledge and standardized measures underlying these complex evaluations. This chapter introduces the relevant legal concepts, psychological constructs, and specialized methods used in forensic evaluations of criminal responsibility. It subscribes to the legal-empirical-forensic paradigm propounded by Rogers and Shuman (2005). Briefly, legal formulations of insanity provide a general framework. Forensic psychologists and psychiatrists must operationalize and test empirically specialized methods for assessing the components of insanity. These empirically tested methods are subjected to judicial scrutiny regarding their admissibility in light of Daubert (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 1993) and subsequent Supreme Court cases (General Electric Company v. Joiner, 1997; Kumho Tire Company v. Carmichael, 1999).
