In Defense of the Insanity Defense

  • Robert L. Sadoff
Part of the Critical Issues in American Psychiatry and the Law book series (CIAP, volume 5)


The insanity defense continues to be at the center of a great controversy. Most psychiatrists favor the concept of relieving a seriously mentally ill person of criminal responsibility if his mental illness significantly affects his behavior. Most attorneys also adhere to the notion that insanity is a viable defense, when significant mental illness is involved. Recently, at-tempts have been made to abolish the insanity defense for a number of reasons.


Mental Illness American Psychiatric Association Pathological Gambling Criminal Responsibility Model Penal Code 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bracton H, cited by Whitlock FA: Criminal Responsibility and Mental Illness. London, Butterworths, 1963.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Coke E: Institutes, Part 3. London, 1797.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hale M : Pleas of the Crown. London Shrewsbury, 1682, p 43.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arnold’s Case, 16 State Trials, 695, (1724). Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Id. at 702.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    RV Hadfield, 27 State Trials, 1281 (1800).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    RV M’Naghten, 10 Clark and Finney, 200 (1843).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Weiner BA: Mental disability and the criminal law, in Brakel SJ, Parry J, Weiner BA (eds) The Mentally Disabled and the Law. 3 ed, Chicago, American. Bar Foundation, 1985, p 710.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    United States v Durham, 214 F.2d 862 (1954).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    State v Pike, 49 N.H., 399 (1869); State v Jones, 50 N.H., 369 (1871).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    United States v Brawner, 471 F.2d 969 (1972).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    The American Law Institute Model Penal Code. Philadelphia, American Law Institute, §4.01 (1962).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Idaho, §18–207 (1974 and Supp. 1984); Montana, §46–14–201 (1981); Utah, §76–2- 305 (1978 and Supp. 1983). Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    People v McQuillan, 221 N.W. 2d 569 (Mich. 1974).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    The thirteen states are Alaska, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michi-gan, Montana, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Utah, and Vermont. See Brakel SJ, Parry J, Weiner BA (eds) The Mentally Disabled and the Law. 3 ed, Chicago, American Bar Foundation, 1985, p 714. Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Senate Bill 171 of the General Assembly of Pennsylvania (amended October 27, 1981). Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    18 U.S.C., §20 (1984).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Statement of the American Bar Association Policy on the Insanity Defense (February 9, 1983); Statement of the American Psychiatric Association on the Insanity Defense (December, 1982).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Statement of the American Psychiatric Association on the insanity defense. Am J Psychiatr 1983; 140:683.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Id. at 683.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sadoff RL: The insanity defense: Why it should be retained.J Leg Med 1977; (June) 32.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    In Re Jonathan R. LaDew, CV-86–469 (Ken. Cty. Feb 3, 1987). Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sadoff RL: Editorial comment on Halpern AL: Elimination of the exculpatory insanity rule. Psychiatr Clin 1983; 6(4):633.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert L. Sadoff
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Psychiatry; Center for Studies in Social-Legal PsychiatryUniversity of PennsylvaniaJenkintownUSA

Personalised recommendations