The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has updated its Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including with new information specifically addressed to individuals in the European Economic Area. As described in the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, this website utilizes cookies, including for the purpose of offering an optimal online experience and services tailored to your preferences.

Please read the entire Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. By closing this message, browsing this website, continuing the navigation, or otherwise continuing to use the APA's websites, you confirm that you understand and accept the terms of the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including the utilization of cookies.

×
No Access

The insanity defense: a tale of two cities

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.140.7.873

The M'Naghten case and the Hinckley matter are in some ways remarkably similar. The attempted assassination of a ruling figure, the public discomfort with the insanity defense, and problems in the application of the legal rules characterized both. An explosion of media criticism occurred in 1843, as it did in 1982. The English ultimately handled the M'Naghten case in a dispassionate manner that determined Anglo-American law for more than a century and provided the basic law by which Hinckley was tried. Fears expressed in 1843 were never realized; the final chapters of the Hinckley case remain to be written.

Access content

To read the fulltext, please use one of the options below to sign in or purchase access.