|
Article Excerpt
Previous studies have shown the Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory--3 (G. Miller, 1999) to be valid in classifying substance use disorders in forensic and mentally ill populations. The authors found that it also correctly classified substance use disorders in the understudied not guilty by reason of insanity population.
**********
Concerns about the not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) defense have been discussed in the popular press as well as in the research literature (Bloom & Williams, 1994). Landmark cases such as the 1981 assassination attempt on then U.S. President Ronald Reagan by John Hinckley (Linder, 2001) and, more recently, the Andrea Yates infanticide case (Brown, 2006; Roche, 2002) have brought the issue of NGRI to the forefront. In both of the aforementioned cases, mental health professionals determined that the defendant met diagnostic criteria for a psychotic disorder. Being diagnosed with a mental disorder in itself is not sufficient to absolve defendants of responsibility for their actions, however. Eligibility for the NGRI defense is based on the question of whether defendants' judgment was impaired by mental disorder or defect to the extent that they did not know the wrongfulness of their action at the time the offense was committed (Crimes and Criminal Procedure, 1984). In other words, to use the NGRI defense, defendants must prove that they were not capable of making a rational choice to abide by societal norms at the time of the crime.
Given the media attention to such high-profile cases, it might be surprising to learn that there have actually been relatively few cases that successfully used the NGRI defense. In fact, less than 1% (0.93%) of all felony cases in the United States attempt the NGRI defense, only about 1 in 4 (26.27%) of which are successful (Melton, Petrila, Poythress, & Slobogin, 1997; Silver, Cirincione, & Steadman, 1994). Borum and Fulero (1999) concluded with similar statistics: Whereas there is variability among jurisdictions, the insanity defense is raised less than 1% of the time in felony cases, with a success rate of only 15%-25%.
When defendants are found NGRI, the law is clear that they will be committed to a suitable facility, such as a psychiatric hospital, until they are eligible to be released back into the community (Crimes and Criminal Procedure, 1984). This release is under the jurisdiction of the court in which they were found NGRI and is commonly known as a conditional release. There are certain conditions by which the individual must abide to remain in the community, and failure to abide by these conditions will result in a revocation of the conditional release (Crimes and Criminal Procedure, 1984). When an NGRI acquittee is returned to the community on a conditional release, a plan to monitor the individual must be in place to determine compliance with the conditions of his or her release as well as to report to the court whether the acquittee is abiding by these conditions. Failure to abide by the conditions of the release can pose a risk to public safety, which could result in revocation of an acquittee's release. This is consistent under both state and federal law (Crimes and Criminal Procedure, 1984).
Researchers have identified several factors that have been linked with revocation of conditional release. For example, Callahan and Silver (1998) found that, across jurisdictions, substance abuse history was one of the most significant factors contributing to revocation of conditional release. Sinha and Easton (1999) concluded that there was a link between substance abuse and criminal behavior. Leach, Hardy, and Dinwiddie (1998) found that individuals with co-occurring mental disorders and substance use disorders were more likely to be violent than those diagnosed with only a...
|
