The Guilty But Mentally Ill Verdict
Slobogin, Christopher
:
1985
Abstract
The occasionally controversial consequences of the insanity defense,
epitomized by John Hinckley's acquittal, have recently
spawned a rash of legislative attempts to prevent similar outcomes
in future cases. Three states have abolished the insanity defense
entirely, permitting evidence of mental abnormality only when
relevant to the state of mind required for the offense. Several
other states have opted for less dramatic steps: tinkering with the
insanity test; shifting the burden of proof to the defendant; or
both. By far the most popular "solution" to the "insanity defense
problem," however, is what has become known as the guilty but
mentally ill verdict.
Although there are as many variations of the guilty but mentally
ill verdict as there are statutes endorsing it, all such legislation
is designed to provide the factfinder with an additional option
to the three traditional verdicts of guilty, not guilty, and not guilty
by reason of insanity. Under the typical formulation, if the jury
finds a defendant who asserts the insanity defense guilty and not
insane, it may alternatively find him guilty but mentally ill at the
time of the offense. If the defendant is found guilty but mentally
ill the court may impose any sentence appropriate for the offense,
but the defendant is eligible for treatment in prison or a mental
hospital while incarcerated. Proponents of guilty but mentally ill
legislation hope to reduce insanity acquittals and provide greater
protection to the public by offering judges and juries a compromise
verdict that purportedly ensures both prolonged incarceration
and treatment for the mentally ill offender.
Files in this item
- Name:
- Guilty But Mentally Ill.pdf
- Size:
- 2.690Mb
- Format:
- Description:
- published article