Insanity on Trial
The insanity defense debate has come full circle, again. The current round began when John Hinckley opened fire; in 1843, it was Daniel M'Naghten who pulled the trigger; the "acts" of both would-be "insanity acquittees" provoked the press, the populace, a President, and a Queen to expressions of outrage, and triggered Congress, the House of Lords, judges, jurists, psychologists, and psychiatrists to debate this most maddening matter. "Insanity" -which has historically been surrounded by defenses, defen­ ders, and detractors-found itself once again under siege, on trial, and undergoing rigorous cross-examination. Treatises were written on the sub­ ject, testimony was taken, and new rules and laws were adopted. The dust has settled, but it has not cleared. What is clear to me is that we have got it wrong, once again. The "full circle" analogy and historical parallel to M'Naghten (1843) warrant some elaboration. Hinckley's firing at the President, captured by television and rerun again and again, rekindled an old debate regarding the allegedly insane and punishment (Caplan, 1984; Maeder, 1985; Szasz, 1987), a debate in which the "insanity defense" is centrally situated. The smolderings ignited anew when the Hinckley (1981) jury brought in its verdict-"not guilty by reason of insanity" (NGRI).
1103665789
Insanity on Trial
The insanity defense debate has come full circle, again. The current round began when John Hinckley opened fire; in 1843, it was Daniel M'Naghten who pulled the trigger; the "acts" of both would-be "insanity acquittees" provoked the press, the populace, a President, and a Queen to expressions of outrage, and triggered Congress, the House of Lords, judges, jurists, psychologists, and psychiatrists to debate this most maddening matter. "Insanity" -which has historically been surrounded by defenses, defen­ ders, and detractors-found itself once again under siege, on trial, and undergoing rigorous cross-examination. Treatises were written on the sub­ ject, testimony was taken, and new rules and laws were adopted. The dust has settled, but it has not cleared. What is clear to me is that we have got it wrong, once again. The "full circle" analogy and historical parallel to M'Naghten (1843) warrant some elaboration. Hinckley's firing at the President, captured by television and rerun again and again, rekindled an old debate regarding the allegedly insane and punishment (Caplan, 1984; Maeder, 1985; Szasz, 1987), a debate in which the "insanity defense" is centrally situated. The smolderings ignited anew when the Hinckley (1981) jury brought in its verdict-"not guilty by reason of insanity" (NGRI).
169.99 In Stock
Insanity on Trial

Insanity on Trial

by Norman J. Finkel
Insanity on Trial

Insanity on Trial

by Norman J. Finkel

Paperback(Softcover reprint of the original 1st ed. 1988)

$169.99 
  • SHIP THIS ITEM
    Qualifies for Free Shipping
  • PICK UP IN STORE
    Check Availability at Nearby Stores

Related collections and offers


Overview

The insanity defense debate has come full circle, again. The current round began when John Hinckley opened fire; in 1843, it was Daniel M'Naghten who pulled the trigger; the "acts" of both would-be "insanity acquittees" provoked the press, the populace, a President, and a Queen to expressions of outrage, and triggered Congress, the House of Lords, judges, jurists, psychologists, and psychiatrists to debate this most maddening matter. "Insanity" -which has historically been surrounded by defenses, defen­ ders, and detractors-found itself once again under siege, on trial, and undergoing rigorous cross-examination. Treatises were written on the sub­ ject, testimony was taken, and new rules and laws were adopted. The dust has settled, but it has not cleared. What is clear to me is that we have got it wrong, once again. The "full circle" analogy and historical parallel to M'Naghten (1843) warrant some elaboration. Hinckley's firing at the President, captured by television and rerun again and again, rekindled an old debate regarding the allegedly insane and punishment (Caplan, 1984; Maeder, 1985; Szasz, 1987), a debate in which the "insanity defense" is centrally situated. The smolderings ignited anew when the Hinckley (1981) jury brought in its verdict-"not guilty by reason of insanity" (NGRI).

Product Details

ISBN-13: 9781461289241
Publisher: Springer US
Publication date: 09/30/2011
Series: Perspectives in Law & Psychology , #8
Edition description: Softcover reprint of the original 1st ed. 1988
Pages: 398
Product dimensions: 5.98(w) x 9.02(h) x 0.04(d)

Table of Contents

I. Historical Development of Anglo-American Insanity Perspectives.- 1. An Historical Look at Insanity Defenses: From King Aethelred to Queen Victoria.- 2. From M’Naghten to Hinckley: Yesterday’s Answers Breed Today’s Questions.- 3. The Courtship of Law and Psychology.- II. Background Issues—Basic Concepts, False Hopes, and Erroneous Beliefs.- 4. The Concept of Mental Illness (Disease).- 5. Therapeutics for the Insane, Dilemmas for Therapists.- 6. Punishment and the Insane.- III. Prevailing Currents, Unsettling Consequences.- 7. The Layman’s (Juror’s) Perspective on Insanity.- 8. Neuropsychological Perspectives on Insanity.- 9. The Patient’s Perspective: Involuntary Treatment.- IV. Future Directions and Recommendations.- 10. The Essence of Insanity.- 11. Toward a New Test for Insanity.- 12. Law and Psychology—the Courtship Reconsidered.- References.
From the B&N Reads Blog

Customer Reviews