UF Professor Of Law, Psychiatry: Eliminate Insanity Defense

November 6, 2000

GAINESVILLE, Fla. — Using insanity as a defense should no longer be allowed because the mentally ill don’t need special defenses, according to a University of Florida professor of law and psychology.

“My proposal is aimed at the nub of why we excuse the mentally ill,” said Christopher Slobogin, a professor in UF’s Fredric G. Levin College of Law. “I’m proposing that we get rid of the special defense of insanity and instead apply to the mentally ill the same defenses we apply to others, defined in terms of what the offender actually thinks was happening during the offense. Defined that way, the general defenses, like self-defense and lack of intent, sufficiently recognize the exculpatory effect of mental illness.”

A UF department of psychiatry affiliate professor since 1995 and a UF law school professor since 1982, Slobogin has also taught for the University of South Florida’s department of mental health since 1986 and has been a visiting faculty member at four universities worldwide.

Under Slobogin’s plan, published in November in the Virginia Law Review, a mentally ill person who kills an innocent stranger because he believes the person was trying to kill him would be excused, just as a sane person would be excused if he was, in reality, defending himself against an attacker.

But mentally ill people who understand what they’re doing and are not acting in self defense would not be protected by the insanity defense, Slobogin said.

For instance, John Hinckley convinced a jury he was insane when he tried to assassinate President Ronald Reagan in 1981. Under Slobogin’s proposal, Hinckley would have been found guilty. Instead, he was acquitted and committed to a mental hospital, which he has been allowed to leave on supervised visits with other patients to malls and bookstores.

“I had nagging doubts about the propriety of that result,” he said. “Not only was it clear that Hinckley planned to and intended to kill Reagan but that his reason for doing so, although bizarre, would not have justified his actions. The main reason he gave was to impress the actress Jodie Foster. He wasn’t trying to defend himself. He was trying to consummate a love affair. That doesn’t justify murder.”

A person should also be excused from charges of murder if mental illness makes it impossible for the person to form the intent to commit the crime, Slobogin said.

“For instance, a person with mental retardation may kill another person, not realizing or understanding the concept of death,” Slobogin said. “He may believe that the person will spring back up like a cartoon character. In this case, mental illness makes it impossible for the person to form the required intent.”

If implemented, Slobogin’s proposal would not overhaul the current system but would simply modify the system to prevent people who should be held accountable from escaping punishment, Slobogin said.

“I’m not one of those people who feels that the insanity defense should be abolished because defendants are bamboozling juries,” Slobogin said. “It’s not an argument driven by fear that the insanity defense will take over the criminal justice system. This is an attempt to focus on the appropriate exculpatory effect of mental illness.”

Richard Bonnie, a professor at the University of Virginia’s School of Law and the director of the Institute of Law Psychology and Public Policy, said that while he doesn’t agree with Slobogin that the insanity defense should be eliminated altogether, he does believe that it should be narrowed. However, he commended Slobogin for putting forth a proposal at what he said was an important time.

“The last time there was a fundamental reconsideration of the insanity defense was in the wake of the Hinckley acquittal in the early ‘80s,” he said. “There were some proposals analogous to what he (Slobogin) is proposing. It’s time to raise the issue once again. Every twenty years or so, it’s a good thing to take a look at this, so this article is a useful contribution.”