The Impact of One’s Generation on Their Perception of the Insanity Defense

Following United States v. Hinckley, where John W. Hinckley, Jr. was found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) after his attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan, the insanity defense has become a contentious topic because of its connections to legal, moral, and ethical domains. Moreover, attitudes towards these fields differ among generations due to specific events that shape how each cohort responds to different systems, resulting in varying opinions of the defense. Thus, this study aims to 1) understand how generational differences impact one's perception of the insanity defense and 2) explore generational attitudes towards legal standards of insanity, mental health, and insanity myths. A primary survey was distributed to students and full-time employees at a midsize high school in Washington state that collected participants' (n=227) demographic information, level of support for the insanity defense, and questions regarding the legal standards of insanity, mental health, and insanity myths. A secondary survey presented 12 participants with a case study modeled off the United States v. Hinckley case and a verdict preference. Primary survey results were analyzed using Likert scales, and secondary survey results were categorized by themes identified in responses. Data shows that recent generation display a more positive perception of the insanity defense than older generations, who exhibit milder acceptance of mental health issues in legal contexts. All generations displayed unawareness about the realities of the defense. These conclusions highlight the importance of promoting age diversity in legal juries and the need to mitigate misconceptions regarding the insanity defense.