Chapter III: Pretrial Issues, Adjudication and Sentencing
Policy Statement 14: Adjudication
A criminal case can be adjudicated in several ways - the charges can be dismissed, the defendant can plead guilty or be found guilty in a trial, or the defendant can be found not guilty. The law provides several dispositional alternatives specifically for people with mental illness - i.e., incompetent to stand trial, not guilty by reason of insanity, guilty but insane. [1] This document does not make any recommendations regarding how these dispositions are used or the frequency of their use. [2]
Rather, the document addresses other dispositional alternatives to conviction and sentencing that are available under the law. Although known by different names, these alternatives are generally referred to as "adjudication withheld" or "deferred adjudication."
Earlier, the pretrial diversion decision of the prosecutor was addressed. Under the pretrial diversion alternative, the prosecutor decides to hold the charges in abeyance while the defendant undergoes a program intervention. If successful, the charges are dismissed. If not, the case is placed on a court calendar for prosecution. The distinction between that alternative and those discussed here is that in this instance it is a judicial, rather than prosecutorial, exercise of discretion.
There are variations in how jurisdictions make these alternatives available. For example, under Florida law, the court can withhold adjudication "if it appears to the court that the defendant is not likely again to engage in a criminal course of conduct and that the ends of justice and the welfare of society do not require that the defendant presently suffer the penalty imposed by law." The court then orders the defendant to participate in what is called a "community control" program. If the defendant successfully completes the program there is no conviction. Texas law has a "deferred adjudication" provision. Under this provision, once the defendant enters a guilty plea, the judge may defer the proceedings without entering the adjudication of guilt and order the defendant to abide by certain conditions if the judge finds that doing so "is in the best interests of the victim." If the defendant successfully completes supervision, the charges are dismissed.
Recommendations:
-
Some jurisdictions have replaced the "Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity" disposition with "Guilty but Insane," or some similar variation.
back -
For a discussion of these dispositions, see: American Bar Association, ABA Criminal Justice Mental Health Standards, 1989. Cases in which defendants plead Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity often receive significant publicity, which encourages the public impression that these pleas are commonly used. In actuality, use of the Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity plea is extremely rare. One study in Baltimore City of the circuit and district courts found that of 60,432 indictments filed during one year, only eight defendants (.013 percent) ultimately pleaded not criminally responsible. All eight pleas were uncontested by the state. Jeffery S. Janofsky, Mitchell H. Dunn, Erik J. Roskes, Jonathan K. Briskin, and Maj-Stina Lunstrum Rudolph, "Insanity Defense Pleas in Baltimore City: An Analysis of Outcome," American Journal of Psychiatry 153:11, November 1996, pp. 1464-68.
back

