Professional, political, and public debates are ongoing regarding the best way to assess risk and monitor individuals who have been found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI). Political and public impressions are often confounded by few, often dramatic and highly publicized cases of NGRI acquittees reoffending, rather than by an accurate understanding of the process and actual rearrest rates. States have implemented their own policies and practices for NGRI pleas (if allowed) and the subsequent evaluations, monitoring, and care for acquitted individuals, resulting in significant variation across jurisdictions. In the last five years, Arizona dissolved its Psychiatric Security Review Board (PSRB) and there were calls for ending the Connecticut PSRB. We review some of the past and current practices and evidence from PSRBs in Oregon, Arizona, Connecticut, and Washington. We discuss the challenges of comparing state practices because of variation in the connections between policy and practice and competing stakeholders' interests.
Michaelsen et al. (Mon,) studied this question.