Malingering Detection in Insanity Pleas

Abstract

Malingering in insanity pleas refers to intentional fabrication or exaggeration of psychological symptoms to evade criminal responsibility. As insanity defenses rely on psychiatric evaluation, courts face challenges distinguishing genuine mental disorders from purposeful deception. This study analyzes psychological, neurocognitive, and behavioral frameworks used to identify malingering in forensic contexts. Using a hypothetical dataset from criminal cases across the United States, India, and Italy, findings suggest that malingering detection requires multi-method assessment combining structured clinical interviews, symptom validity testing, neuropsychological screening, behavioral observation, and collateral evidence. The study proposes a forensic evaluation model integrating clinical expertise, standardized metrics, and legal safeguards to reduce false positives and wrongful acquittals.