Disposition of insanity defense cases in Oregon.

Introduction The defense of insanity has been a source of debate since its inception. In theory, this defense is a natural result of the requirement basic to the criminal law that, to find guilt, there must be a guilty mind. 1 In practice, implementation of this concept through the insanity defense has led to many complex problems. The result is a continuing controversy within and between the legal and medical professions, and in the community as well, over whether the defense should be abolished and whether the machinery that is set in motion when it prevails can be made more acceptable. Before and during trial, complications of the insanity defense relate chiefly to the procedural issues of presumptions of sanity or insanity, burdens of proof, choice of a particular test and debate over use of the bifurcated trial as an equitable model. When the defense prevails, a whole set of new problems is presented in connection with disposition. Most of the challenges to the efficacy of the insanity defense have come from experiences with this phase of the proceedings. Consideration of what happens after a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity (n.g.i.), requires analysis of constitutional rights, both procedural and substantive, as well as consideration of the needs of the community. Because the defense has been raised in all crimes, including serious crimes of violence, there is concern over whether the defense may have been abused to avoid prolonged incarceration. There is, as yet, no satisfactory definition of the status of a growing popUlation of those persons who have been found n.g.i. and are in hospitals or on a conditional release in the community. To satisfy constitutional restraints, some outer limits on the relationship of these people to mental health treatment systems must be clarified. Two separate and somewhat conflicting social realities have highlighted the problem of disposition of defendants found n.g.i. One is the increasing emphasis on procedural due process rights of individuals in civil commitment proceedings. Comparing the process given this group to the closely analogous n.g.i. population is forcing states to review their procedures for