Reviewing the Guilty but Mentally Ill Alternative: A Case of the Blind “Pleading” the Blind

Abstract

In response to criticisms of the traditional insanity defense, the “guilty but mentally ill” (GBMI) verdict option was developed and is currently operating in approximately one-fourth of the states. Proponents claim that several goals are achieved with GBMI verdicts: (1) inappropriate insanity findings are reduced; (2) offenders are held criminally responsible; (3) jury deliberations are simplified, as GBMI offers a “compromise” verdict; (4) the public receives greater protection from dangerous offenders; and (5) treatment of mentally ill offenders is provided. However, the present review of the literature suggests that these goals are far from being achieved. Insanity findings are not reduced, offenders are more likely to deny responsibility, and jury deliberations are likely to be more confusing when GBMI is utilized. Further, persons found GBMI are often placed on probation and are not assured of treatment either in or out of prison. It is suggested that numerous misperceptions surround the GBMI option, allowing for its continued use despite clear evidence of its inadequacies.