Insanity Defense Reform Act

In 1972, as part of a larger effort to standardize state codes, a committee sponsored by the American Law Institute (ALI) developed the Brawner, or ALI rule, broadening the legal definition of insanity. This approach stated that defendants were free from criminal responsibility if they lacked the substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of their acts or if mental disease or defect prevented them from conforming their conduct to the law.

Brawner, like the earlier Durham Rule, doesn't last long. In 1982, John Hinckley tries to assassinate President Reagan and is found not guilty by reason of insanity — NGRI. The public is outraged, convinced that he used the insanity plea to escape criminal liability. In fact, very few offenders attempt this. Statistics show that about nine insanity pleas are raised per 1,000 cases, and only two of those end in a finding of NGRI. Nevertheless, the Hinckley case prompts the passage of the 1984 Insanity Defense Reform Act. Most of Brawner's innovations are abandoned, and instead of expert witnesses giving "ultimate opinions" about a defendant's mental status, the jury must decide. The burden is on the defense to prove insanity, rather than on the prosecution to disprove it.

Later, studies will suggest that the act doesn't significantly affect trial outcomes. Insanity remains a difficult defense to mount and substantiate. People who are found NGRI rarely go free. Often they serve more time in institutions for the criminally insane than they would have spent in prison if found guilty.

Hamilton A and I, Prison for the Aged and Infirmed, Workshop. Hamilton,AL Alon Reininger, 1994