Abstract
Insanity is a legal term of art that changes definitions depending on the legal standard in American jurisprudence, which explains why a man who mental health professionals described as having an uncontrollable obsession with killing people can be found not insane and guilty. This Note addresses the current state of the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 and its widespread implementation at the state level. Part II supplies background information on the history of the insanity defense and how it has transformed over the years in American jurisprudence. Part III provides an analysis of the of the insanity defense. Part IV suggests a new standard of for the insanity defense with a more accommodating application to a wider degree of mental diseases.
Recommended Citation
Eric Collins,
Insane: James Holmes, Clark v. Arizona, and America's Insanity Defense,
31 J.L. & Health
33
(2018)
available at https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/jlh/vol31/iss1/6
Included in
Criminal Law Commons, Diagnosis Commons, Health Law and Policy Commons, Mental Disorders Commons, Psychiatric and Mental Health Commons