Insanity Defense Versus Guilty But Mentally Ill (Gbmi)

The insanity defense has been a huge issue in the justice system. The problem is focused on a person’s current mental state can impair their judgement. On a different hand, these individuals shouldn’t be sentenced nor punished for a crime they could not comprehend as wrong. Many believe that the insanity defense is easy to fake and that there is no need for it. Nor do they understand what it is. Though this defense is not always brought upon a judge and jury in criminal cases. It is based on the perception that a person is being sentenced for a crime which he or she is to mentaliy impaired to complete due to their illness. Though the insanity defense is not always summoned in trials but the views amongst our society and the government seem to look down upon it. The insanity defense is implying that the defendant(s) should be found not guilty because of their lack of mental capacity to understand what they committed was wrong. It may be seen as a “get out of jail free” card but when in reality this is a harder plea to fake. The success of the defense falls under 1%. When the insanity defense is used in cases, the defense is proving that he or she isn’t respond for their actions. In this process must be beyond reasonable doubt. The insanity defense is relying on the approach of the defendant acknowledge this actions weren’t controllable. The defendant has to undergo multiple tests and is seemingly under a microscope. There are some states that allow defendants to claim that they understood their actions were criminal but weren't able to control it. People in our society see the Insanity defense as the easiest to be convicted.

How I see it, the Guilty but Mentally Ill is the easiest. For example look at the famous case of Mary Winkler. Mary was a 32 year old woman that didn’t have a great home life. Mary Winkler was charged with first degree murder in March of 2006. She had killed her husband Matthew Winkler with a shotgun. Mr. Winkler was a good man in the public’s eye but was a completely different person behind closed doors. To the public he served as a pulpit minister for a church called Fourth-Street of Christ in Selmer, Tennessee. Mr. Winkler had missed a service at the church which he was scheduled to lead. This caused a worry among the audience. A couple members came to the Winkler residence to find Mr. Winkler dead with a shot in his back. Behind closed doors Mr. Winkler was physically and mentally abusing Mary. To the extent she feared for her life. She was convicted by the jury of manslaughter and was sentenced to serve 210 days in a psychiatric rehabilitation center. I believe she should have been found not guilty by reason of insanity. I feel she didn’t get the correct plea due to the controversial options on the insanity defense. In our society, out of the fifty states forty-eight have there own type of insanity defense. There are many believers that the defense gets the defendant out of jail time but in reality he or she can face more time possibly a more guling experience. As the insanity defense is being plead, it’s being said that the defendant admits to committing their unjust actions. They are now pleading the not guilty verdict based on their state of mind. The jury has the opportunity to not agree with the plead. If the defendant is to be convicted, they usually serve a longer sentence, even longer than a defendant who was convicted of the same unjust actions that didn’t plea insanity. The Insanity defense gives a mentally ill defendant an opportunity to avoid imprisonment for a crime. There is an assumption that he or she (the defendant) was not capable of recognizing their actions from right to wrong. Usually the sentence of a mentally ill defendant will be assigned to a psychiatric rehabilitation center instead of serving jail time. The thought is that people whom have a mental illness shouldn’t be held accountable for a crime that they did noy understand was wrong due to their conditions. The NGRI (not guilty for reason of insanity) verdict has a multitude of criteria that a defendant has to fall under( competency, m’naghten rule and model penal code. ) Competency, being ties to the insanity defense involves legal competency. This is also known as “competence to stand trial. ” If the defendant cannot stand trial, he or she is deemed legally incompetent. The chances of being deemed incompetent are very low. This then falls into the M'Naghten rule which is a famous legal test started in 1843 (M'Naghten case). Daniel M'Naghten had shot and killed the secretary of the brisih prime minister. M’Naghten believed that the Prime Minister was planning against him. M’Naghten was acquitted by reason of insanity and was put in a psychiatric rehabilitation center for the rest of his life.

This rule is a standard that is applied by the jury, after hearing medical testimony from defense. It created a presumption of sanity forcing the defense to prove at the time of committing the act, he or she did not know what they were doing was wrong. Along with the M'Naghten rule comes the Model Penal code. This states that a defendant is not responsible for criminal conduct when the defendant has a result of mental disease or defect. Throughout all of these options that have given the presumption that a defendant can avoid punishment due to it being seen as “a get out of jail card” is false. The defendant is actually playing a risky hand. The defense focuses on the belief that the conviction along with the punishment are qualified if the defendant is deemed fit for them. As for guilty but mentally ill (GBMI) verdict, this statute was created in 1975. Statute was established in 1975. The GBMIThough it plays a major role in a crime, the GBMI verdict has very little support. Compared to the NGRI verdict which has forty-eight states behind it, GBMI only has twenty states in support. GBMI acknowledges the defendant's mental illness. These states that incarcerate the defendant for their actions only treat them for their mental illness. GBMI is an 'easy out' for defendants. If the jury finds the defendant guilty, the punishment isn’t harsh. A defendant that receives the verdict is sentenced in the same fashion like he or she were guilty but the court can determine the length of the defendant’s sentence. It goes upon the extent of which the defendant requires treatment for mental illness. During the treatment if the defendant’s mental illness is seen to be stable and is no longer a threat to society, the offender can be released. What some fail at is understanding that the defendant could easily slither his or her way to get this verdict. They (the defendants) know they won't be able to get the verdict they want so they play with the minds of the jury. Some won't spend the time nor effort worrying about if the defendant is stable because they find the defendant ill. Which then makes them blinded by the fact that he or she should be found NGRI if their illness was that server. The opposing side being the prosecutor could attempt to attack the insanity defense. He or she will go upon the confusion and concepts. They will focus on the term “insanity” its self. Both parties (prosecutor and defendant) agree that the term is legal not medical. Describing a severely mentally ill person as insane is tpoo simple, and many of the people that deal with a mental illness would be judged stable if current tests for insanity were not available. The prosecutor possibly could note that the tests for insanity have backfire. The defendant with the mental condition could become so impaired in the process that may cause that defendant to lose his or her free will. This has a chance of being brought up because free will is not an aspect that is being specified in medical terms. It could potentially be impossible for the psychiatrist to give a valid observation if the test caused addition mental impairment. In the process it altered the defendant's capacity to volunteer their choice. So there for without an option to range the insanity, it then makes no sense to allow the prosecution and defense psychiatrists spar over the issue.

A jury's decision has to come from psychiatrists' opinions and evaluation. Without that it may be grounded on unreliable evidence. Another argument the prosecutor can attack against the insanity defense is that it challenges moral basis. It could be said that with modern criminal law, we are concerned more with the consequences of the defendant’s actions and less of the moral imperatives. If the defendant committed his or her criminal action, they should be convicted. Their mental illness could be taken into thought during the process of sentencing but should not have an affect on that crime. This type of reasoning is supported by the laws in which several states acquire. Those states that have no regard for the insanity defense can substitute it with a new verdict of guilty but insane. With this verdict it has a criminal penalty. This will able the judge to figure out the extent of the imprisonment. This could mean time in a psychiatric rehabilitation center or serious time in whatever setting the judge feels most will benefit the defendant. In conclusion, the insanity defense is very limited but is often used in the court. The presumption that the insanity defense is an easy plea needs to come to an end. There are many defendants that try to become free of their crimes by using not guilty for reason of insanity; they are sadly mistaken. The process of evaluating a defendant to be deemed insane has multiple tests and rules which then make is long and grueling. These tests that we have use the absolute best criteria to give the correct evaluation. Although there are very little cases that this plea is very relevant.

For the most part the insanity defense is used correctly and deserved to be respected more. Those people who have severe mental illnesses do not share the same symptoms. Some are more severe than others. The duration and the effect of the illness differs among people. There is a huge benefit of successful when the insanity plea is used. That person isn’t wrongfully sentence because of their illness. Those defendants that plead guilty but mentally ill are sentenced for treatment and not punishment. Which then they can be let out early once they are seen as stable for society. Most of the time when it is used, they are escaping owing up for their wrongful actions then can potentially come back into society not properly handled. This then can turn into the revolving door effect. Meaning their previous unlawful actions will continue.

References

1. Arrigo, B. (2002). Punishing the mentally ill: A critical analysis of law and psychiatry (Suny series in new directions in crime and justice studies)
2. Brown, KP. (2018). Insanity Defense Typology: Behavioral Sciences & the Law, vol. 36, 317–332
3. Callahan, L. , McGreevy, M. , Cirincione, C. , & Steadman, H. (1992). Measuring the effects of the guilty but mentally ill (gbmi) verdict: Georgia's 1982 gbmi reform.
4. Goldzband, M. (1992). The insanity plea revisited. Psychiatric Annals, 22(11), 547-549. Richie,WD. (2014). Frendak to Phenis to Breivik: An Examination of the Imposed Insanity Defense,172–172.
5. Sherman, S. (1981). Guilty but mentally ill: A retreat from the insanity defense. U. S National Library of Medicine (1898). The plea of insanity, 24, 330-330.