This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Robert L. Marcus, MD
Dix Hills, NY

JAMA. 1985;253(4):510.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.—

Riley and George,¹ in their COMMENTARY, recommend that the special defense of insanity be reformed and not abolished. They believe that a "new test" that "focuses solely on whether a defendant, due to mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of his or her conduct at the time of the offense" would be a solution to the problems created by the insanity defense.

As a psychiatrist, I wish to state unequivocally that such a test would be impossible to apply. Any answer to such a test question must be totally arbitrary. Any meaningful understanding of the mental processes of offenders readily reveals that no criminal is able to appreciate meaningfully (ie, appreciate in a way that goes beyond mere lip service) the wrongfulness of his or her behavior. Invariably, offenders have a very large repertoire of rationalizations to justify their behavior. Whether this . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?