trojan
Thursday, July 1, 1982	University of Southern California	Volume XCI, Number 11
CONFUSION WITH DEFINITION OF INSANITY
Jury blameless in Hinckley verdict, says prof
The jury should not be blamed for a bad verdict in the John Hinckley case, a university law professor says.
“The fault’s with the law, not the jury,” says Michael Moore, a Law Center professor who is an expert on the insanity plea and the role of the unconscious in criminal behavior.
“The jurors did the best they could with the instructions they were given. If they had been free to judge Hinckley’s mental state without reference to current legal tests or the testimony of experts, they might have done a better job.”
In formulating his instructions to the jury, U.S. District Judge Barrington D. Parker applied the American Law Institute test for insanity.
“Basically,” Moore explains, “the ALI test holds that a person is insane if he (or she) lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.”
The ALI test is one of three dominant stated in California by popular referen-McNaughten formula (recently reinstated in California by popular referendum) allows acquittal by reason of insanity only if the defendant either did not understand the nature of his crime or did not know that it was wrong. The third, the "irresistable impulse” test, holds that a person must be found innocent if he could not control his behavior at the time of the crime.
According to Moore, all three of these tests can result in some perverse twists.
“If the McNaughten formula had been applied in the Hinckley case, for exam-
ple, the jury would have been charged to decide whether Hinckley knew what he was doing and knew it was wrong.
“Using that formula, the jury might well have found him guilty — reasoning that Hinckley committed the crime precisely because he knew it to be wrong, that he knowingly committed a wrongful act for the express purpose of gaining public attention.”
In Moore’s opinion, the three tests offer strained and convoluted definitions of insanity that confuse the issue and render juries impotent.
“Psychiatrists have influenced the judicial system to define insanity in accordance with theories of ‘mental illness,’ ” Moore says. “All of the tests require jurors to judge either cognitive or volitional impairment. To reach that judgement, they’re forced to rely on a parade of experts who provide contradictory testimony.”
Moore believes the courts should turn to a much more basic, and popular, definition of insanity — lack of capacity for rational thought.
“The idea pre-dates psychiatry by many centuries,” he says. “Since Aristotle, rationality has been the hallmark of people as moral agents who can fairly be blamed for their actions.”
As Moore points out, the ancient concept of insanity coincides with the popular motion of today.
“From childhood, we all develop the ability to distinguish people who are rational from people who are irrational,” he says.
"If the law were changed to reflect this commonsense approach, the judge
in an insanity case would instruct the jury simply to determine whether the defendant is fundamentally rational or not.”
Moore suggests that, instead of abolishing the insanity plea altogether, the insanity test should be reformed along these lines.
“In a civilized society,” he says, “punishment can only be applied to those who are blameworthy. Lacking capacity for rational thought, a crazy person may have intentionally committed a legally prohibited harm and have done so without a mitigating excuse, such as self-defense or duress. But that person should not be held culpable for his deed.”
Thus, if John Hinckley was fundamentally irrational when he wounded President Reagan and three others outside the Washington Hilton on March 30, 1981, ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’ would be the appropriate verdict.
“In my opinion,” Moore says, “Hinckley was fundamentally rational when he committed the crime. If a ‘rationality’ test had been applied at his trial, he would have failed to meet the criteria.
“Neither would he have passed the insanity test that was actually applied, if the burden of proof had been placed on the defense.
“Insanity — either as it is currently defined or as I would redefine it — is an inherently vague notion. The side that’s saddled with proving sanity or insanity beyond a reasonale doubt will almost always lose.
“We should require that insanity be
established only by a preponderance of the evidence, and we should shift the burden of proof to the defense.
“By doing that, we might seem to be violating a fundamental precept of American jurisprudence. Through our system of justice, we prefer to risk error in favor of the defendant rather than the prosecutor. This prefernce is encapsulated by the maxim, ‘Better 10 guilty persons go free than one innocent person be convicted.’
“But when a defendent pleads innocent by reason of insanity, commission of the crime is not at issue. Both the prosecution and the defense agree that the defendent did, in fact, commit the crime.
“The only error possible here concerns the defendant’s insanity and whether he will go to a hospital for the criminally insane or go to prison.
“I believe that shifting the burden of proof to the defense is appropriate in such cases. If a person is to be excused from punishment for an admitted crime, the defense should have to prove that person insane.”
If the law were changed as Moore proposes, he believes the only defen-dents who could escape imprisonment by pleading insanity would be “people most of us would recognize as very different from ourselves, not accountable for their actions, and better off in a mental hospital.”
Issues related to the insanity plea are discussed at length in Moore’s soon-to-be-published book. Law and Psychiatry: Rethinking the Relationship.
Working poor facing hard times with Reagonomics
Cuts in federal aid programs are encouraging the working poor to leave their jobs and become totally dependent on public assistance, a univefsity professor says.
“While attacking the welfare system for supposedly eroding individual initiative, the Reagan administration has withdrawn the system’s incentives for-low'-incorrife workers to stay
on the job,” says Joseph Who-ley, a professor of public administration at the university’s Washington Public Affairs Center and a member of the Commonwealth of Virginia's Board of Welfare.
“Prior to the administration’s recent changes in the federal aid formula,’’ Dr. Wholey explains, “a welfare client who worked could keep for himself
about a third of what he earned. Only about two-thirds of his pay would be counted toward reducing his monthly welfare check. So recipients had an incentive to work. They were better off working than sitting at home.
“But federal policy changes have abolished the ‘sliding scale’ incentives that continued to provide meaningful —
though reduced — aid to those who tried to help themselves. After the first four months of holding a job, a recipient of aid to families with dependent children (ATDC), for example, now would lose a dollar of aid for every dollar earned.”
Meanwhile, Wholey points out, the working poor will also bear the brunt of federal cuts in such basic aid programs as food stamps, Medicaid, free school lunches, low-income energy assistance, low-income housing, compensatory education for low-income children, employment and training for the poor and unskilled, legal services, food supplements for pregnant women, infants and children, and other social services.
According to Wholey, these budget cuts — aimed at saving money by barring all but the 'truly needy' from federal aid
—	will prove counterproductive to the administration's goal.
“Only with the supportive services and protection such programs provide,” Wholey explains, “have many low-income workers been able to survive on what they earn. When the supplemental aid is withdrawn, many will be forced to quit their jobs.
“If, for example, a low-income worker develops a serious medical problem and can no longer turn to Medicaid to
cover his hospital bills, he may have no choice but to quit work and go on welfare.
"Similarly, if free day-care facilities are denied to children of the working poor, the high cost of child care may be more than a working mother can afford. Instead of continuing to work, the woman may simply have to stay home and collect full public-assistance benefits.
“For the elderly and disabled, the new federal requirements will reduce work opportunities and, in some cases, force people to give up independent living. Programs that provided companion care for a few hours a week, some meals or other aid have been crucial to people who would otherwise fall into total dependency on public services or may even face institutionalization.”
In short, Wholey indicts Reagan's aid policy as “penny wise but pound foolish.”
“The policy is predicted on a desire to save money by getting as many people as possible off welfare. But the working poor far outnumber the people who are totally dependent on public aid. By barring the working poor from supplemental assistance, the number of people totally dependent on government aid is sure to increase.
(Continued on page 4)
Public affairs director resigns
Arthur J. Naparstek has resigned as director of the university’s Washington Public Affairs Center.
“After six years, it’s time to investigate new frontiers and turn over the reins to someone with a fresh perspective,” said Dr. Naparstek, who plans to take a sabbatical for the uppcoming year and pursue research and writing.
Naparstek will be succeeded as director by Beryl Radin, currently a professor at the center.
During Naparstek’s term, the Washington Public Affairs Center experienced extraordinary growth as an institution for education, research and public service.
The center moved from a small townhouse to a new facility in downtown Washington. Student enrollment tripled and now includes more than 475 graduate students and 70 undergraduates. The number of full-time faculty members doubled. Grant activity increased from almost nothing to nearly $3 million.
At the graduate level, three new master’s degree programs were created. A strong affirmative action program brought in large numbers of
women and minority students who otherwise would not have had an opportunity to study at a private university.
The center's training programs have drawn practitioners from all levels of government and public administration. The center has become a forum for middle-level and senior executives representing every agency in federal government, for public service practitioners from states and cities, and for representatives from volunteer and community development organizations throughout the country.
In the 1980-81 academic year, more than a thousand people registered in the center’s programs.
Naparstek’s studies have been an integral part of the center’s research efforts. He completed major studies on decentralized and community-based approaches to the delivery of human services.
The Washington Public Affairs Center is one of two satellite campuses of the School of Public Administration. The other is located in Sacramento.