Petrella R C, Benedek E P, Bank S C, Packer I K
Hosp Community Psychiatry. 1985 Mar;36(3):254-9. doi: 10.1176/ps.36.3.254.
The insanity defense has come under increased criticism after the highly publicized acquittal of John Hinckley, Jr. A variety of proposals have been suggested to rectify the perceived injustices of an insanity acquittal. In 1975 Michigan passed a guilty but mentally ill statute that allowed for individuals to be found mentally ill at the time of the offense but still criminally responsible for their actions. The authors review the history of the Michigan statute, scrutinize an empirical study of the statute's effectiveness, and debate a number of controversial issues. They suggest that guilty but mentally ill may be a misleading verdict established because of purely political motives.
在小约翰·欣克利被宣告无罪事件被高度曝光之后，精神错乱辩护受到了越来越多的批评。人们提出了各种建议，以纠正因精神错乱而宣告无罪所带来的明显不公。1975年，密歇根州通过了一项“有罪但患有精神疾病”的法规，该法规允许判定个人在犯罪时患有精神疾病，但仍需对其行为承担刑事责任。作者回顾了密歇根州该法规的历史，仔细审查了一项关于该法规有效性的实证研究，并对一些有争议的问题进行了辩论。他们认为，“有罪但患有精神疾病”可能是一个因纯粹政治动机而确立的具有误导性的裁决。
