Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Past Issues
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Print Subscriptions
  • About
    • About the Journal
    • About the Academy
    • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts
  • AAPL

User menu

  • Alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
  • AAPL
  • Alerts
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Past Issues
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Print Subscriptions
  • About
    • About the Journal
    • About the Academy
    • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts
Research ArticleARTICLES

Informed Decision Making in Persons Acquitted Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity

Richard L. Elliott, Evan Nelson, W. Lawrence Fitch, Randall Scott, Greg Wolber and Rajendra Singh
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online September 1993, 21 (3) 309-320;
Richard L. Elliott
M.D., Ph.D.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Evan Nelson
Ph.D.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
W. Lawrence Fitch
J.D.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Randall Scott
M.D.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Greg Wolber
Ph.D.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rajendra Singh
M.D.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Deciding to raise an insanity defense carries serious consequences. This is especially true for persons charged with minor offenses, for whom an acquittal not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) might lead to a longer period of incarceration than would conviction. Before raising an insanity defense, a defendant should be provided with information necessary to make an informed decision and should be competent to understand the consequences of the verdict. This study attempted, through retrospective review and concurrent evaluation, to determine the degree to which trial courts in Virginia attended to these important aspects of informed decision making before finding defendants charged with misdemeanors NGRI. The study also attempted to assess the degree to which defendants were competent and informed at the time of adjudication. In most instances, trial courts did not consider defendants' competence to make decisions regarding the insanity defense and did not consider whether defendants were informed about the consequences of a successful insanity defense at the time of adjudication. The average length of stay for these patients was (at least) 21 months; most would have been released earlier had they been committed civilly rather than committed as a result of insanity pleas. We stress the need to educate judges, attorneys and forensic evaluators to the importance of considering defendants competence to plead insanity and of providing information about the consequences of a successful plea. We also propose that laws be changed to recognize the importance of these elements in the decision making process regarding pleas of insanity.

  • Copyright © 1993, The American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online: 21 (3)
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online
Vol. 21, Issue 3
1 Sep 1993
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in recommending The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law site.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Informed Decision Making in Persons Acquitted Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Informed Decision Making in Persons Acquitted Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity
Richard L. Elliott, Evan Nelson, W. Lawrence Fitch, Randall Scott, Greg Wolber, Rajendra Singh
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online Sep 1993, 21 (3) 309-320;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Informed Decision Making in Persons Acquitted Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity
Richard L. Elliott, Evan Nelson, W. Lawrence Fitch, Randall Scott, Greg Wolber, Rajendra Singh
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online Sep 1993, 21 (3) 309-320;
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Prearraignment Forensic Evaluations: Toward a New Policy
  • Trading Forensic and Family Commitments
  • Postconcussional Disorder and Loss of Consciousness
Show more ARTICLES

Similar Articles

Site Navigation

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Archive
  • Information for Authors
  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts

Other Resources

  • Academy Website
  • AAPL Meetings
  • AAPL Annual Review Course

Reviewers

  • Peer Reviewers

Other Publications

  • AAPL Practice Guidelines
  • AAPL Newsletter
  • AAPL Ethics Guidelines
  • AAPL Amicus Briefs
  • Landmark Cases

Customer Service

  • Cookie Policy
  • Reprints and Permissions
  • Order Physical Copy

Copyright © 2025 by The American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law