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.

×
Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.202000707

The U.S. Supreme Court has not previously ruled on whether the insanity defense, a long-established component of criminal law, is constitutionally required. Five states have abolished the insanity defense, and a challenge to one of those laws reached the court last year. In sharply contrasting opinions, the justices differed on whether the insanity defense is so rooted in Anglo-American jurisprudence as to be deemed fundamental, with the majority finding it not required by the Constitution. Although the decision is unlikely to lead to immediate changes in state laws, it illuminates the Supreme Court’s views on the moral basis for criminal punishment.