Insanity and Crime: The Mystery and Complexity of Defending the Mentally Ill

The defense of not guilty by reason of insanity has long been a subject of controversy. Many people dislike that this option is available in the American justice system because they believe it allows criminals to escape consequences for their actions. As a result, there has been much public outcry for a reformed version or alternative to the insanity defense. Alternatives include the reduction in the number of successful insanity defenses, as well as an intermediate verdict for those defendants who were clearly mentally ill at the time of the crime, but who did not meet all the criteria for an insanity plea. Although there is a need for an alternative, this paper argues that Guilty But Mentally Ill, the alternative verdict adopted by most states so far, is flawed and ultimately inappropriate to fill this role. GBMI has several theoretical flaws and is a difficult concept to understand for most juries, especially when juxtaposed with the insanity defense. Indeed, there should be an alternative verdict to the insanity defense, but this article argues that whatever form the alternative takes, it should be more transparent than GBMI's services and implications.