Reviewing the Guilty But Mentally Ill Alternatives: A Case of the Blind Pleading the Blind

• NCJ Number: 151823
• Journal: Journal of Psychiatry and the Law Dated: (Summer 1993) Pages: 191-220
• Author(s): K M Bumby
• Date Published: 1993
• Length: 30 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Survey
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

In recent years, approximately 25 percent of the States have enacted legislation creating a guilty but mentally ill (GBMI) plea to replace or supplement the traditional insanity defense.

Abstract

Supporters argue that the GBMI plea reduces inappropriate insanity findings, makes offenders accept criminally responsibility, simplifies jury deliberations, maintains the public safety, and ensures that mentally ill offenders receive treatment. However, the results of this literature search indicate that, in fact, GBMI does not reduce the number of insanity findings, offenders are more likely to deny responsibility for their crimes, and jury deliberations become more complex when GBMI is introduced. Persons found guilty but mentally ill are often placed on probation and do not necessarily receive the treatment they need. The author concludes that GBMI has misled the public, jurors, defendants, attorneys, and judges into its continued use and should be eliminated as a verdict option. 145 notes