This Comment examines the issue of what standard of conduct should constitute insanity, in light of the California Supreme Court's holding in People v. Drew. The author argues that psychiatrists, courts, and laymen continue to disagree as to what standard of conduct should constitute a defense to criminal responsibility, but that, in Drew, the court redefined the legal test for insanity, adopting the more expansive view favored by many psychiatrists. The author analyzes the court's reasoning in adopting the new standard and examines the standard's purported advantages in light of psychiatric findings and judicial experience with various insanity tests. The author expresses the hope that the legislature will reexamine the problem and promulgate a more appropriate definition of criminal insanity.
Paul K. Traficante,
People v. Drew - Will California's New Insanity Test Ensure a More Accurate Determination of Insanity?,
San Diego L. Rev.
Available at: https://digital.sandiego.edu/sdlr/vol17/iss2/13