Measuring the effects of the guilty but mentally Ill (GBMI) verdict

We studied effects of guilty but mentally ill (GBMI) legislation on use of the insanity defense in Georgia using data on all defendants entering an insanity plea before (1976–1981) and after (1982–1985) the introduction of the GBMI verdict. In contrast to earlier studies, our results indicated that GBMI did decrease the likelihood of an insanity verdict and affected the composition of those found not guilty by reason of insanity. Defendants pleading insanity and found GBMI were typically white males with a serious mental disorder, charged with murder or robbery in which an unrelated female victim was involved. The data also indicated that defendants who pleaded insanity and were found GBMI received harsher sentences than their guilty counterparts. We conclude that the GBMI verdict will make the insanity plea a less appealing option for mentally ill defendants.     

The social construction of criminal responsibility and insanity

This study examines the effects of judicial instructions (traditional American Law Institute [ALI] not guilty by reason of insanity [NGRI] instructions contrasted with ALI instructions supplemented with the guilty but mentally ill [GBMI] alternative) and case information cues (delusional content and planfulness) on student and community subjects' attributions of responsibility. GBMI instructions substantially reduced the probability of NGRI and guilty verdicts in response to vignettes portraying highly psychotic defendants and altered the pattern of variability in responsibility construal ratings. Variation in delusional content cues (self-defense versus non-self-defense) influenced ratings of criminal appreciation but did not affect the verdict distributions. Less planfully commited crimes resulted in higher proportions of insanity verdicts. However, individual differences in responsibility construals of the defendant and in attitudes toward the insanity defense were stronger predictors of verdicts than the design variables, suggesting that individual differences in social-moral cognition are at least as relevant to the attribution of responsibility as are case cues or legal frames of reference. Contrary to previous studies,Witherspoon death penalty attitudes were not related to verdicts, but people without conscientious scruples toward the death penalty were more likely to render guilty verdicts.     

The insanity defense: effects of abolition unsupported by a moral consensus

The insanity defense reflects the moral judgment that some criminal defendants do not deserve criminal sanctions because of mental incapacity. This Note examines the alternative formulations, such as guilty but mentally ill and diminished responsibility, that some states have enacted in the face of growing controversy over the insanity defense. It observes that the alternatives, if used in lieu of the insanity defense, distort the criminal law and do not comport with the legal doctrine of responsibility, which eschews punishing mentally ill defendants. The Note concludes that the insanity defense should not be abolished unless the moral consensus changes regarding the criminal responsibility of mentally ill defendants.     

Defendants pleading insanity: an analysis of outcome

The authors examined the cohort of all defendants pleading not guilty by reason of insanity over a 12-month period in Baltimore City's superior trial court. During that time, 143 of the 11,497 defendants indicted (1.2%) pled not criminally responsible. Fourteen of those defendants (10%) were subsequently found not guilty by reason of insanity. The authors found marked agreement between the prosecution and defense with only two cases leading to full trials where the issue of insanity was argued. The evaluating physician's opinion as to criminal responsibility and Axis I diagnosis, and the most serious underlying charge discriminated between those defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity and those defendants found guilty or not guilty by the court. Other demographic factors such as age, number of dependents, educational level, severity of illness, and criminal background did not discriminate between the two groups.     

Detention Patterns of Successful and Unsuccessful Insanity Defendants

This study examines the detention patterns of the insanity defendant who is successful with the plea and hospitalized, or unsuccessful and incarcerated. Further comparisons are made with felony defendants who never entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI). From existing data it is unclear to what extent detention may vary if the plea is successful as compared to if it is not successful. Of all defendants who entered a plea of NGRI in Erie County, New York (Buffalo) between 1970 and 1980, 128 were institutionalized as a result of their disposition. Sociodemographic, institutionalization histories, arrest, and disposition information were collected and analyzed for all 128 individuals. The research evaluates differences in the likelihood and length of either institutionalization or incarceration and in the rates of release between successful NGRI defendants, those who entered the plea unsuccessfully, and those who did not plead NGRI. From the findings reported here the authors conclude that pleading NGRI in Eric County may not be quite as advantageous for a defendant as commonly is believed.     

Guilty but mentally ill: the South Carolina experience

Thirty of the first 45 individuals to receive guilty but mentally ill (GBMI) verdicts in South Carolina were interviewed using a structured interview schedule for diagnosis. The relationship of diagnosis to pretrial evaluation and posttrial conviction treatment are discussed. No person received GBMI in a jury trial. Suggestions to improve the operation of the GBMI verdict are made, as well as a brief review of these data with data from other states.     

Factors that influence jury decision making

Investigated whether information regarding the disposition of insanity acquittees and the defendant's mental state at the time of the trial, had a significant effect on mock jurors' verdicts. Two trials were used to assess whether results generalize across cases. participants read excerpts from a trial in which the accused's mental state at the time of the trial (symptom free, neurotic symptoms, or psychotic symptoms) and the disposition instructions (no instructions, indeterminate disposition, and capped disposition) were varied. Participants then rendered a verdict of guilty, not guilty, or not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD). Participants who thought the accused was psychotic at the time of the trial were more likely to render a verdict of NCRMD than guilty, and they were more likely to render a verdict of NCRMD than those who thought the accused was normal. No significant differences were found for disposition. Finally, a significant difference for verdicts was found between trials.     

A comparison of insanity defense standards on juror decision making

Following the Hinckley acquittal, 17 states and the federal government made changes to the insanity defense, including revising the standard, reassigning the burden of proof, and altering the standard of proof. Two studies were conducted to determine whether the specific insanity standard (including the assignment of burden of proof and standard of proof) employed had a significant effect on mock jurors' verdicts. Participants' comprehension of insanity defense instructions was measured and the factors jurors used to decide whether to find the defendant not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) were also assessed. Participants' comprehension of insanity defense standards was very low. When asked to identify the factors they considered important in determining whether to find a defendant NGRI, only three elements of insanity defense standards were identified as significant. The results may have important implications for policy decisions regarding the insanity defense.     

Guilty but mentally ill: Reform of the insanity defense in Illinois

In 1981 Illinois joined several other states by passing a “guilty but mentally ill” statute. Passed as a response to perceived inadequacies in the existing insanity defense, the statute was intended to protect society better, to provide treatment for offenders, and to compel the offender to assume greater responsibility for his or her criminal acts. This study, based on court data and responses to a survey of state prosectors, suggests that the statute has not been successful in reaching its major objectives. GBMI offenders often may be placed on probation, infrequently receive treatment when institutionalized, and may use the plea to absolve themselves of responsibility for their acts.     

Dangerous mentally disordered criminals: unresolvable societal fear?

The average person fears dangerous criminals, especially those suffering from mental illness. Existing mental health and criminal justice systems provide social control for some of these dangerous individuals, but may be inadequate to deal with those mentally disordered offenders who were not found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI). In California, innovative laws have attempted to address this problem. However, putative lack of efficacious treatment of mentally ill criminals, insufficient economic support, and individual liberty concerns loom as limiting factors in solving the criminal and psychiatric recidivism problem posed by non-NGI dangerous mentally disordered offenders.     

Post-Hinckley insanity reform in Oregon

The 1983 Oregon legislature responded to public pressure to narrow the application of the insanity defense by eliminating personality disordered individuals from consideration for an insanity verdict. This article examined the effects of the statutory change, and found no significant change in the frequency of insanity acquittals of personality disordered subjects between the three pre-reform years (n = 21) and the three post-reform years (n = 14). We also reviewed how the Psychiatric Security Review Board handled these patients once committed to their jurisdiction. We constructed a matched comparison group of psychotic acquittees and found that in the pre-reform years the personality disordered subjects spent less time in the system and less time in the hospital than the psychotic patients. However, in the post-reform years their time in the system and time in the hospital was the same as the psychotic controls. There were fewer decisions to discharge personality disordered patients from the system after the reform, although this difference may be due to factors other than the statutory reform itself. The conclusion is that narrowing the insanity defense is a worthy goal which may be difficult to achieve.     

Firebug! Dissociative Identity Disorder? Malingering? Or …? An Intensive Case Study of an Arsonist

Psychological Injury and Law - Courts struggle with questions of how to assess competency to stand trial (CTS) and not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) in dissociative identity disorder (DID)....     

Insanity plea: predicting not guilty by reason of insanity adjudications

Using 35 variables and discriminant analysis procedures, it was found that, of 133 male defendants entering the insanity plea in Colorado, 87 percent were classified correctly into the disposition groups "adjudicated insane" and "convicted." Most positively related to an insanity adjudication were a psychiatric evaluation of insanity and a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Negatively related to the insanity verdict were diagnoses of substance use and personality disorders.     

Verdict selection processes in insanity cases

Judicial instructions (traditional American Law Institute vs. Guilty But Mentally Ill [GBMI]) were manipulated within an insanity defense vignette portraying a highly psychotic defendant. Construals were highly predictive of verdicts in both instructional conditions. Instead of influencing case construals, the GBMI option seems to operate by increasing respondents' decisional thresholds for insanity and guilty verdicts, creating a collapsing effect such that few such verdicts are rendered. Between-instruction comparisons reveal that the construals of respondents who choose insane and guilty verdicts are considerably more homogeneous and extreme under the GBMI conditions. Results suggest that many respondents intend their GMBI verdicts to signify diminished blame and punishment, indicating that such verdicts entail cognitive compromises that reflect both the thresholdraising effects and also probable confusion about the jurisprudential meaning of a GBMI verdict.This article is an expanded version of a paper entitled Insanity case construals are not simply verdict justification effects, which was presented at the 99th annual convention of the American Psychological Association at San Francisco, August, 1991. We would like to thank Linda Roberts, Norman Finkel, and the anonymous reviewers for their comments on an earlier version of this paper. Support for this research was provided in part by a grant from the Baldy Center on Law and Social Policy at the State University of New York at Buffalo.     

Characteristics of successful and unsuccessful insanity pleas

Thirty men acquitted not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) were matched on type of violent crime and compared to 30 men who unsuccessfully raised the insanity defense. Demographic, legal process, and psychological variables were compared. Eighty percent of successful acquittees previously had been found incompetent to stand trial, compared to only 33% of those found guilty and sentenced to prison. Ninety-six percent of NGRI acquittees opted for trial before a judge rather than a jury; 76% of cases raising an unsuccessful defense were heard in front of a jury. Unsuccessful attemptees also had significantly higher IQ scores and personality profiles characterized by acting-out potential and intact reality testing compared to profiles of NGRIs. The ability of the legal system to identify those meeting criteria for the insanity defense is discussed.     

Moral wrongfulness and insanity: a New Zealand sample

Introduction: This study sought to identify the common characteristics amongst defendants found legally insane, compared to those who were psychiatrically evaluated yet convicted of their crime. Method: A retrospective review of court-ordered psychiatric court reports and legal outcomes was conducted, for all defendants referred for insanity evaluations in the largest city in New Zealand (and its surrounding rural regions) for a 7-year period. Results: The majority (60%; 37) of those referred for evaluation were found legally insane. The opinion regarding moral wrongfulness was the single factor that differentiated successful insanity defendants from those who were found guilty. Conclusions: Despite the centrality of the insanity defence to forensic psychiatry, few studies internationally consider characteristics of those found insane, particularly in comparison with those who are found guilty. Psychiatrically evaluated defendants in this sample were relatively homogenous, perhaps due to the court liaison nurse screening process.     

The insanity defense in Shelby County,Tennessee

The purpose of this investigation was threefold: to document the number of cases in Shelby County, Tennessee where an insanity defense was possible: to follow cases through to disposition to determine what percentage of defendants use the defense successfully; and to examine the type of charges for insanity cases. Of the 25.000 individuals processed through the Criminal Courts. 685 (2.7%) were referred for insanity evaluations and 45 defendants (6.6%) were returned to the court with a recommendation from the Midtown Mental Health Center's Forensic Team that an insanity defense was possible. Of the 45 insanity defendants identified, 49% (n=22) pleaded guilty, 31% (n=14) went to trial, and 20% (n=9) were dismissed. Overall, 22% (n=10) of the insanity defendants were adjudicated not guilty by reason of insanity. Thus, of all defendants processed (25,000), 04% (n=11) were adjucated not guilty by reason of insanity. While no one type of offense predominated, two general categories were observed: murder and related offenses (33%) and property crimes (27%). The findings are discussed with reference to procedures for handling insanity cases in Tennessee and the position that extreme caution should be exercised before investing substantial resources to effect sweeping changes in laws that effect so few criminal defendants.