This means that high-profile cases that successfully use the insanity defense will likely generate criticism of the plea, even in those instances where its application was justified. In this regard, Cromier reports that, "The details of the insanity defense is one area of the law that has been deeply impacted by specific cases (generally when the public backlashes against a defendant who has successfully used the defense)" (p. 130). In particular, the criticisms generated by the John Hinckley case catapulted the debate over the insanity defense to the national forefront (Cormier, 2010). In response to growing criticisms concerning the use of the insanity defense in the John Hinckley trial, in 1984, Congress passed the Insanity Defense Reform Act (hereinafter "the Act") that codified several changes to federal law as follows: 1. The Act provided a new standard for insanity, allowing defendants to offer, as an affirmative defense, evidence that at the time they committed the crime, they were unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of their actions.

2. The Act shifted the burden of persuasion from the prosecution to the defendants, who then had to prove their insanity by clear and convincing evidence.

3. The Act provided for a verdict of "not guilty by reason of insanity" in addition to the two traditionally accepted verdicts of guilty and not guilty.

4. The Act established a federal procedure for commitment of defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity (Ellias, 1995, p. 1063).

There are some important distinctions under the law between "innocent," "not guilty," and "not guilty by reason of insanity" that must be taken into account as well. In this regard, Black's Law Dictionary defines "innocent" as being "free from guilt" (p. 789) and "not guilty" as a "the form of the verdict in criminal cases where the jury acquits the defendant" (p. 1061). This means that courts do not find defendants "innocent"...

With respect to the "not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity-defense," Black's advises that, "The term is a social and legal term rather than a medical one and in law, is used to denote the degree of mental illness which negates the individual's legal responsibility of capacity" (p. 795). This definition indicates that under the law then, insanity exists along a continuum that at its extreme ultimately renders individuals incapable of distinguishing fantasy from reality. For these extreme cases, the Act stipulates that people may not be adjudicated in criminal courts even for the most horrendous criminal acts but should rather be treated in mental health facilities until they are competent and capable of actively participating in their defense in meaningful ways. The ability of some people to successfully feign mental illness to escape punishment, though, as well as the wide range of approaches that are used by different states to establish insanity, has generated criticism among the general public and scientific community alike to the extent that several states have modified their evaluative standards to further restrict its use.