Guilty but mentally ill plea

DEFINITION: Alternative plea in which the defendant admits guilt for the crime charged but also claims to have been mentally incompetent at the time the crime was committed.

SIGNIFICANCE: Forensic psychologists and psychiatrists provide expert testimony concerning a defendant’s mental condition as defined by law. Juries and judges rely on this evidence to reach the alternative verdict of guilty but mentally ill.

When a person commits a crime, the government has the right to punish the wrongdoer and take steps to protect society. Some offenders, however, may have mental impairments that inhibit their ability to conform to society’s rules. The purpose of a plea or verdict of guilty but mentally ill (GBMI, known in some jurisdictions as guilty but mentally incompetent), therefore, is to allow both society and the criminally responsible but mentally incompetent offender to achieve specific goals. Society’s objectives are to punish criminals for their crimes and to prevent further criminal acts. With a GBMI plea or verdict, these goals are accomplished as the mentally incompetent criminal receives not only a sentence but also appropriate mental health treatment.

History

Historically, fact-finders in criminal cases (that is, juries in jury trials and judges in bench trials) could reach three possible verdicts: guilty, not guilty, or not guilty by reason of insanity. Many defendants who are found guilty are incarcerated in correctional facilities. Defendants found not guilty are usually released into society. The insanity defense is used very rarely in criminal prosecutions, and defendants do not have a high success rate in achieving acquittal by proving they are not guilty by reason of insanity. In those few cases in which the insanity defense is successful, the majority of the acquittees are held in mental health facilities for testing, observation, and treatment until they are released because mental health professionals have made the judgment that these persons no longer pose a serious danger to others or themselves.

American society has always been critical of the insanity defense, which relieves a defendant of criminal responsibility and, many argue, allows serious offenders to return to society with little or no punishment. Research, however, indicates that many insanity defense acquittees serve as much time in mental health facilities as they would have served in correctional facilities had they been found guilty. In 1975, Michigan became the first US state to adopt the GBMI verdict to assuage the public outcry that arose after two defendants who had been found not guilty by reason of insanity committed violent crimes soon after their release from a mental health facility. In response to high-profile insanity defense cases, other states began to adopt GBMI statutes modeled after the Michigan law. By the beginning of the twenty-first century, twenty states had adopted GBMI statutes, and some of these states had also repealed their laws allowing the insanity defense.

Whereas defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity are likely to be civilly committed to mental health facilities for observation and possible treatment, GBMI defendants are criminally committed or sentenced, although GBMI offenders are supposed to receive appropriate treatment for their mental illness. In contrast with civil commitments to mental health facilities, under criminal commitments, GBMI offenders are not entitled to periodic reviews to determine whether their mental health is improving. Moreover, when those who have received GBMI verdicts are sentenced to incarceration, they are released after they have served their sentences, even if their mental incompetence still exists.

Legal Standards

As of 2024, at least twelve states had enacted GBMI provisions, including New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Illinois. State GBMI statutes vary, but most require fact-finders to make three specific findings to arrive at a GBMI verdict. First, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged. Then the defendant must provide expert testimony that evidences the defendant’s mental incompetence or impairment, as defined by state law, when the crime was committed. Most states also require that the defendant plead insanity and that the fact finder determine there is insufficient proof for a legal insanity defense but sufficient evidence of mental incompetence to support a GBMI verdict. Forensic mental health experts conduct evaluations to assess whether the defendant meets the legal requirements to support an insanity defense and, if not, to assess whether the defendant comports with the mental illness criteria for the GBMI verdict.

Juries do not have to be informed of the consequences of a GBMI verdict or that a mentally incompetent offender will receive the same sentence for the underlying crime as would an offender who does not have a mental impairment. This fact has raised debate, particularly in the case of the death sentence, which courts have upheld as appropriate for certain crimes despite a jury’s finding that a defendant was mentally incompetent when the crime was committed. Moreover, after a jury has made a mental incompetence finding, any grant of parole or sentence of probation the offender might receive is likely to be conditioned on the offender’s receiving mental health treatment; thus, the individual is labeled as mentally ill.

Most defendants who receive GBMI verdicts are sentenced to incarceration in correctional facilities where they are to receive appropriate mental health treatment. There is evidence, however, that these offenders may not receive adequate mental health treatment, as correctional facilities rarely have the funding or resources to provide meaningful services, and some defendants may refuse treatment.

Bibliography

Ellis, Van W. “Guilty but Mentally Ill and the Death Penalty: Punishment Full of Sound and Fury, Signifying Nothing.” Duke Law Journal 43 (1993): 87–112. Print.

"In Support of the Insanity Defense." Mental Health America, June 2020, mhanational.org/issues/support-insanity-defense. Accessed 15 Aug. 2024.

Mickenberg, Ira. “A Pleasant Surprise: The Guilty but Mentally Ill Verdict Has Both Succeeded in Its Own Right and Successfully Preserved the Traditional Role of the Insanity Defense.” University of Cincinnati Law Review 55 (1987): 943–96. Print.

Plaut, Vicki. “Punishment Versus Treatment of the Guilty but Mentally Ill.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 74.2 (1983): 428–56. Print.

Pollock, Joycelyn M. Criminal Law. 10th ed. Routledge, 2013. Print.

Rajaee, Mason J. "Guilty, But Mentally Ill, But Not Insane? Making Sense of South Carolina’s Approach to Mentally Ill Offenders." South Carolina Law Review, vol. 74, no. 3, 2023, sclawreview.org/article/guilty-but-mentally-ill-but-not-insane-making-sense-of-south-carolinas-approach-to-mentally-ill-offenders. Accessed 15 Aug. 2024.

Rogers, Richard, and Daniel W. Shuman. Conducting Insanity Evaluations. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford, 2000. Print.

Sherman, Scott. “Guilty but Mentally Ill: A Retreat from the Insanity Defense.” American Journal of Law and Medicine 7 (1981): 237–64. Print.