| The M'Naughten Standard for insanity has stood as the cornerstone of judicial approaches to the insanity defense for more than 160 years. However, the meanings and wordings have been altered and expanded during the century and a half since the trial and federal and state standards on the definition of insanity differ widely. Often, the question whether to pursue an insanity plea is based upon the judgment of the defense attorney, yet there are no uniform criteria for determining proper use. This study examined the history and modern correlates of the insanity defense, as well as defense attorney attitudes and practices. Participants were 98 defense attorneys in the state of Texas. Using frequency and descriptive statistics, it was shown attorneys generally are confident in their ability to recognize mental illness in a client, are likely to request a sanity evaluation for information purposes, will often seek the insanity defense if a previous finding of incompetence to stand trial was present, and rate symptoms of psychosis, to be very important in receiving a verdict of Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity.;KEY WORDS: Insanity Defense, NGRI, Defense Attorney, Attitudes, Evaluation Information, Client Participation. |
