Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The legislative structuring of insanity acquittee policies

  • Articles
  • Published:
The journal of mental health administration Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Using Missouri’s insanity acquittee system as a case study, this analysis explores the extent to which legislation can structure the implementation of mental health policy. It found that Missouri's insanity acquittee legislation substantially structured policy implementation toward its primary goal of public safety. It did so (a) by including actors from both the criminal justice and mental health systems in the insanity acquittee release process, (b) by specifying procedures and criteria for the commitment and release of insanity acquittees, and (c) by requiring monthly monitoring of insanity acquittees released into the community and funding the staff positions to conduct the monitoring. The ability of legislation to structure policy implementation highlights the need for active involvement by mental health policy makers in the legislative process to shape policy goals and to structure implementation to support the interests of the mental health community. Without this involvement, implementation options available to mental health administrators may be severely limited.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lester JP, Bowman AO’M, Goggin ML, et al.: Public policy implementation: Evolution of the field and agenda for future research.Policy Studies Review 1987;7(1):200–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Linder SH, Peters BG: A design perspective on policy implementation: The fallacies of misplaced prescription.Policy Studies Review 1987;6(3):459–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Elmore RF: Backward mapping: Implementation research and policy decisions. In: Williams W, Elmore RF (Eds.):Studying Implementation: Methodological and Administrative Issues. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House, 1982, pp. 18–35.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Mazmanian DA, Sabatier PA:Implementation and Public Policy. Second ed. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  5. O’Toole, LJ Jr.: Policy recommendations for multi-actor implementation: An assessment of the field.Journal of Public Policy 1986;6(2):181–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Sabatier PA: Top-down and bottom-up approaches to implementation research: A critical analysis and suggested synthesis.Journal of Public Policy 1986;6:21–48.

    Google Scholar 

  7. LaFond JQ, Durham ML:Back to the Asylum: The Future of Mental Health and Policy in the United States. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  8. McGinley H, Pasewark RA: National survey of the frequency and success of the insanity plea and alternate pleas.Journal of Law and Psychiatry 1989;17(2):205–221.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Way BB, Dvoskin JA, Steadman HJ: Forensic psychiatric inpatients served in the United States: Regional and system differences.Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law 1991;19(4):405–412.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Revised Statutes of Missouri. 1995. c. 552.

  11. Sabatier P, Mazmanian D: The conditions of effective implementation: A guide to accomplishing policy objectives.Policy Analysis 1979;5:481–504.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Brakel SJ: After the verdict: Dispositional decisions regarding criminal defendants acquitted by reason of insanity.DePaul Law Review 1988;37:181–258.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Revised Statutes of Missouri. 1995. sec. 552.040.

  14. Swafford S: County prosecutors seek to overturn “conditional release” law.Fulton Sun, July 10, 1988.

  15. Bryant T: Nixon seeks tougher rules for those who plead insanity.St. Louis Post-Dispatch, January 16, 1996.

  16. Justice and mental health.St. Louis Post-Dispatch, January 24, 1996.

  17. Poythress NG, Miller RD: The treatment of forensic patients: Major issues. In: Shah SA, Sales BD (Eds.):Law and Mental Health: Major Developments and Research Needs. DHHS Pub. No. (ADM) 91-1875. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1991, pp. 81–113.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Revised Statutes of Missouri. 1984. sec. 552.040.1.

  19. Callahan L, Mayer C, Steadman HJ: Insanity defense reform in the United States—Post-Hinckley.Mental and Physical Disability Law Reporter 1987;10(1):54–59.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Petrella RC, Benedek EP, Bank SC, et al.: Examining the application of the guilty but mentally ill verdict in Michigan.Hospital and Community Psychiatry 1985;36(3):254–259.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Steadman HJ, McGreevy MA, Morrissey JP, et al.:Before and After Hinckley: Evaluating Insanity Defense Reform. New York: Guilford, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Dirks-Linhorst PA, Linhorst DM: Developing and implementing a statewide plan for forensic services.Administration and Policy in Mental Health 1994;21(6):537–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Halleck NH, Petrila J: Risk management in forensic services.International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 1988;11:347–358.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Linhorst DM: Implementing psychosocial rehabilitation in long-term inpatient psychiatric facilities.Journal of Mental Health Administration 1995;22(1):58–67.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Woodin D: Prosecutor knew of hospital’s plan to release patient.Joplin Globe, October 24, 1986.

  26. Judge denies freedom to rapist in state hospital.Springfield News, December 28, 1988.

  27. Mickenberg I: Apleasant surprise: The guilty but mentally ill verdict has both suceeded in its own right and successfully preserved the traditional role of the insanity defense.Cincinnati Law Review 1987;55(4):943–996.

    Google Scholar 

  28. McClellan DS: The New York State Insanity defense Act of 1980: A legislative experiment,Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law 1989;17(2):129–151.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Weiner BA: Interfaces between the mental health and criminal justice system: The legal perspective. In: Teplin LA (Ed.):Mental Health and Criminal Justice. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1984, pp. 21–41.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Revised Statutes of Missouri. 1994. sec. 552.040.18.

  31. Revised Statutes of Missouri. 1994. sec. 552.040.15.

  32. Revised Statutes of Missouri. 1994. sec. 552.040.16.

  33. McGreevy MA, Steadman HJ, Callahan LA: The negligible effects of California's 1982 reform of the insanity defense test.American Journal of Psychiatry 1991;148(6):744–750.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Pasewark RA, Randolph RL, Bieber S: Insanity plea: Statutory language and trial procedures.The Journal of Psychiatry and Law 1984;12(3):399–422.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Callahan LA, Steadman HJ: Insanity defense reform in Ohio: Does the court of jurisdiction matter?Capital University Law Review 1990;19(3):809–824.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Revised Statutes of Missouri. 1993. sec. 595.209.7.

  37. Ellis JW: The consequences of the insanity defense: Proposals to reform post-acquittal commitment laws.Catholic University Law Review 1986;35:961–1020.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Skok ES: Policy issue networks and the public policy cycle: A structural-functional approach.Public Administration Review 1995;55(4):325–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Linhorst DM, Dirks-Linhorst PA: The impact of insanity acquittees on Missouri’s public mental health system.Law and Human Behavior in press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Quality Management, St. Louis State Hospital, Quality Management Department, 5400 Arsenal St., 63139, St. Louis, MO

    Donald M. Linhorst Ph.D., M.S.W. (Director)

Authors
  1. Donald M. Linhorst Ph.D., M.S.W.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Linhorst, D.M. The legislative structuring of insanity acquittee policies. The Journal of Mental Health Administration 24, 166–177 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02898511

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02898511

Keywords

Search

Navigation