ABSTRACT
Although the insanity defense addresses issues of fairness in the law, the disposition of insanity cases involves consideration of multiple areas of concern, including protection of public safety, provision of appropriate clinical services, and respect for individual liberty interests, all within the constraints of available resources. Historically, insanity acquittees were indenitely committed to inpatient settings for periods of time longer than the criminal sentence they would have received if they had been found guilty. Beginning in the 1960s, however, mental health advocacy eorts began to yield shorter commitments and deinstitutionalization for the psychiatric inpatient population as a whole. e change similarly impacted the commitment of insanity acquittees, and long-term commitment of defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) could no longer be assumed (Appelbaum 1982). With insanity acquittees returning to the community at a more rapid pace, the public began to perceive the insanity defense as overused (Steadman and Morrissey 1986). e attempted assassination of former President Ronald Reagan by John Hinckley in 1981 and his subsequent use of the insanity defense (United States v. Hinckley 1982) added to public perception of the insanity defense as misused and resulted in further public scrutiny of both the insanity defense and management of insanity acquittees (Hans and Slater 1983).
