This test temporarily increased the use of insanity as a defense,because committing crime could be considered the result of uncontrollable desires. Theirresistible impulse test is the third type of test. This test is a combination of theMNaghten rule and the "product" test. A psychiatrist examines whether or not theaccused criminal knows right from wrong, and whether or not he or she has anyuncontrollable desires to commit crime (1). In the 1970s, a plea known as not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) becamepopular. In Lubins opinion, anyone could use this plea and many willful criminals wereacquitted on the grounds of mental illness (3). During the 1982 trial of John Hinckley,who attempted to assassinate then President Ronald Reagan, the American PsychiatricAssociation withdrew their support of the irresistible impulse test. APA officials decidedthat the line between an irresistible impulse and an impulse not resisted is probably nosharper than that between twilight and dusk (6). The Jones v. United States case of 1983went all the way to the Supreme Court. The final ruling was that people acquitted on thegrounds of NGRI can be held indefinitely, with less proof of dangerousness than isrequired for civilly committed individuals (5). A year later, in 1984, Congress passed theInsanity Defense Reform Act. This act required defendants to prove beyond a doubt thattheir severe mental disease or defect left them incapable of knowing their actions werewrong (6). The NGRI defense is raised in less than one percent of felony cases, and issuccessful (success is defined as acquittal) only about 25 percent of the time. These casesare usually heard by a judge instead of a jury, and are largely unpopular because theburden of proof still relies heavily on psychiatric testimony. Today, 17 states allow a newly worded verdict of guilty but mentally ill (7). Thisverdict indicates that defendants are responsible for the...
