Introduction and history of position statement on the insanity defense for the proposed Federal criminal code.

To understand the following position statement and testimony on the Insanity Defense that I submitted on ]\(ay 15. 1!174. to the United States Senate Sub-committee on Criminal Laws and Prou:dure of the Senate Judiciary Committee. it is necessary to review the legislative historv of these recent eflons to reform Federal criminal laws. Need to refo;m the archaic collection of laws in the present United States Criminal Code has long been recognized. The last update of Federal criminal laws occurred in 1909, almost 70 years ago. In 1966. under Congressional Statute. President Johnson appointed a bipartisan National Commission headed by former California Governor Pat Brown to update and reform the present Federal Criminal Code. After five years. the Brown Commission sub~itted its final report to President Nixon and the Congress on January 7, 1971. DissentIng members of this Commission. tTnited States Senators l\(cC1ellan. Hruska, and Ervin, then succeeded in introducing their minority views to the 93rd Congress as S. 1. President Nixon subsequently called upon the Attorney General's office to rewrite the bipartisan CommiSSion's Final Report: and the l\'ixon Administration's "Criminal Code Reform Act of 1973" was introduced to the Congress as S. 1400 by Senators McClellan and Hruska. During 1974, the Suh-committee on Criminal Laws and Procedures of the Senate Judiciary Committee under Senators McClelland and Hruska held hearings to consolidate S. I and S_ 1400. These Sub-committee Hearings terminated in August 1974; and on October 21. 1974. under President Ford. the consolidation was announced as complete. The Department of Justice. under the Ford administration. made important changes in ~he final version of this legislation. On January 15. 1975. this consolidated \'ersion was Introduced to the Congress of the United States as S. I-the Criminal Justice Reform Act of 1975. Senate Bill :\0. I is a 7!i3-page revision of Title IR of the United States Criminal Code. Although there arc a numher of new provisiom in this reform act, S. l's ~ain thrust is to (odify what i~ now existing law in the Federal Jurisdiction. The definitIOn of Insanity docs present a major ("hange. however. and is of interest and significance to forensic psychiatry. The following positionstatclllent 0111(1 tc\timollv on the proposed definition of In,anity were pre\ented by me to the Senate Judiciarv Sub-committee on l\Jay 15. 1974, in WaShington. D.C .. after the Sprillg 11)71 .\.\'1'1. :\lce;ing had \'Dted to support the original Brown Commi"ion's definition of the In\anitv Defense. The Brown Commission's draft provided a definition of the (mallitv Defeme'that followed the ALI Rule, whereas the Mitchell-Kleindienst draft. as S. 1·100. provided the ~ixon Administration's definition of Insanity. which was much more limited. admitting Insanity as a defense only if the Ins· . . "'lIty camed a );I(k of "the ~tate of mind required as an element of the offense charged." An overwhelming majority of the ,\ .. \PL memher~ at the Spring. 1974, AAPL -• ?r. Pollack is Profes\or of P'\"{'hiatry and Director. Institutc of Psychiatry. La\\" and Behavioral SClen.ce. School of ~Icdicil\(' I)epanmcnt of Psychiatry. and Profcs,or of Psychiatry, School of PfUbhc .\dmini\tration. l.'nivcrsitv of Southern California. Los Angelcs. He is a past President ° the Academy. '