Discuss and critique the Guilty but Mentally Ill (GBMI) verdict as a reform in the rules and procedures for implementing the insanity defense.

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Answers may vary.Since 1976, about a quarter of the states have passed laws allowing juries to reach a verdict of guilty but mentally ill (GBMI) in cases in which a defendant pleads insanity. These GBMI rules differ from state to state, but generally they give a jury the following verdict alternatives for a defendant who is pleading insanity: (1) guilty of the crime, (2) not guilty of the crime, (3) NGRI, or (4) GBMI. Typically, a judge will sentence a defendant found GBMI exactly as he or she would another defendant found guilty of the same offense. In some jurisdictions, the GBMI-convicted individual starts his or her term in a hospital and then is transferred to prison after treatment is completed. In others, the individual simply receives treatment (if needed) while serving a prison sentence.Proponents of GBMI verdicts hoped that this compromise verdict would decrease the number of defendants found NGRI. However, actual GBMI statutes have not produced decreases in NGRI verdicts in South Carolina or Michigan. One possible explanation for the lack of change in NGRI verdicts in states with GBMI statutes is that jurors do not understand the differences between the verdicts. One study examined jurors' knowledge about the two verdicts and found that only 4% of potential jurors correctly identified meanings and outcomes of both NGRI and GBMI verdicts.Other problems have led to a "second look" at the GBMI reform, leading to skepticism about its value. If regular insanity instructions are confusing to jurors, the GBMI verdict only adds to the confusion by introducing the very difficult distinction for juries to make between mental illness that results in insanity and mental illness that does not. However, one mock jury study showed that the presence of a GBMI option makes it less likely that either a conviction or an NGRI acquittal will result.Also, the claim that the GBMI option will make it more likely that mentally ill offenders will receive treatment is largely a false promise. In one Michigan study, 75% of GBMI offenders went straight to prison with no treatment. Overcrowding at hospitals in most states has impeded implementation of this part of the GBMI option. In Kentucky, in spite of a statute that appears to promise treatment to those found GBMI, the chair of the parole board filed an affidavit in 1991 stating that "from psychological evaluations and treatment summaries, the Board can detect no difference in treatment or outcome for inmates who have been adjudicated as ‘Guilty But Mentally Ill,' from those who have been adjudicated as simply ‘guilty.'"