In the legal world of guilty and not guilty, there is a third option, sometimes used
and occasionally successful: not guilty by reason of insanity (NGBI). Those found not
guilty in this manner are treated for their condition and, if they are at some point deemed
sane, released into the world. This is the possibility for John Hinckley, former President
granted unsupervised leaves, with opposition muted perhaps due to the fact that Reagan
now is deceased.” Was there an alternative that would have accepted both his mental
illness and his culpability? The plea guilty but insane allows the person to receive
treatment for mental illness but also insures that he will serve any remaining jail time as a
sane person in jail. All courts should replace the not guilty by reason of insanity plea
In the first place, there are more instances of a successful NGRI than the average
person realizes. According to those opposed to the change, as Vatz notes, “The
[however] over the years, this translates into thousands of cases.” This means it is not just
the John Hinckleys and Andrea Yates in the country committing crimes and not “paying”
for them, but thousands of accused murderers and others manage to convince mental
health professionals they were insane at the time of their crime. Considering most of
these people are not examined until some time later, that determination is quite often a
“battle of the professionals” at the trial. In addition, the fact that these professionals base
their opinion – to a large degree – on the self-reporting of the individual opens the door to
In an uncomfortable statistic, Martha Stout, Ph.D., estimates that four per cent of the
population of the United States is sociopathic – not suffering a psychotic episode or other
such identifiably “insane” state. She states, “Without the slightest blip of guilt or remorse,
one in twenty-five people can do anything at all [her emphasis]” (9). Could a sociopath
Secondly, the NGBI plea allows the person involved to go free if, or when, she is
considered legally sane. This means the person committed to a mental hospital following
a trial can leave if she convinces the mental health professionals at that facility she is now
“sane.” Unfortunately, this process does not take into consideration several very
Most information on a patient comes from the patient herself. This means that if
the person decides not to reveal inappropriate thoughts, the patient apparently does not
have them. Self-reporting has always been a nebulous way to determine actions, thoughts
and motives. The extremely self-aware patient, who knows revealing what is really going
on, can choose to not reveal details that would become grounds for committal. The flip
side of this is the case where the patient is knowledgeable enough to project certain
thoughts – or even claim certain actions or events occurred – so that her condition is
made to seem worse. She might have a disorder that confuses what has happened with
what she thinks happened. She might be sociopathic. She might be trying to avoid
responsibility for her actions and the results of them. There is currently no way to
different in the “real world.” This is seen, to varying degrees, in many environments: The
soldier who is completely in control on camp takes a weekend leave and winds up in jail,
drunk. The prisoner, in prison where everything is mandated, he does as he must. When
he is released, he reverts to his anti-social ways. The mentally ill person, who while in
hospital, does well but falls apart as an out-patient. In a structured environment such as
these, choices are made for the person. He does not choose to take medication, he is
required to and someone monitors him. Hygiene, eating properly, and taking care of his
immediate environment are also mandated and monitored. It is easier to go along with the
river than to fight the current. The “real world” is like a pond. He can go in any direction,
A person who functions well with medication may not continue the medication
outside of the hospital and return to previous behaviors. A person who commits murder
could conceivably spend a few years in a hospital and then walk away, a free person.
There are few rules in place to ensure compliance. As an example of this dilemma, Mark
What has been recommended in Texas is something resembling “a mental illness parole”
(Donald). In this manner, those released would have compliance a stipulation for their
continued freedom. Since many, if not most, psychiatric medications can be monitored by
There is the other side of medication compliance and that is forcing a person to
take medication against his will. As is mentioned in The Economist online, “In a 1990
case the Supreme Court ruled that a mentally ill prisoner could be treated with
antipsychotic drugs against his will, but only if doctors thought that without the drugs the
Even more unsettling was the case of Charles Singleton. He was convicted of the
1979 murder of a young woman. During his incarceration, he was treated for the mental
illness with which he was diagnosed. In early 2004, Singleton, who was determined to be
sane enough to execute, died of lethal injection. According to Wikipedia, the case
attracted interest all over the world “because he was considered legally sane only when
treated with medication.” It is, and has been, argued that the rights of the individual
cannot overshadow the rights of the whole, but the line is quite thin and often shaky.
Medication so that a person may live a productive life is applauded; medication so he can
Finally, the NGBI plea does not require the person involved to be responsible for
his own actions. An important part of emotional maturity is accepting responsibility for
one’s own actions. This plea circumvents that and allows the person to blame the
“insanity” – even if there were strong indications that the person knew the difference
Andrea Yates, as Vatz points out, knew to commit the murders of her children
after her husband left for work and before anyone could reasonably be expected to come
by. She “called the police and later said that she was ‘a bad mother.’ Both actions [she
also carefully positioned the bodies of four of the children] indicate she knew what she
did was unethical.” The person found NGBI is never truly required to accept
responsibility.
The majority of the states have some form of NGRI. Only a few offer the GBI
plea. For example, “Arizona law says that a defendant ‘may be found guilty except insane
if at the time of the commission of the criminal act the person was afflicted with a mental
disease or defect of such severity that the person did not know the criminal act was
wrong’” (Holland). A person who commits a crime should be presumed innocent. She
Justice and mercy are both served with the plea of guilty but insane. The actor
receives the treatment she needs for her mental illness, if indeed such is present, but then
responsibility for her actions takes place as she is treated as any other convicted criminal.
The “get out of jail free” card called legal insanity is counterproductive for the
community and the individual. It does not truly protect the rights of the individual or the
whole. The one does not benefit from the emotional maturity of responsibility; the other
likely will see the same actions again. Therefore, all courts should replace the NGBI plea
Works Cited
"A new insanity defence; Forcible medication. (Do defendants, or prisoners, have a
constitutional right to refuse drug treatments?)." The Economist (US) 366.8313 (March 1,
2003): NA. Expanded Academic ASAP. Thomson Gale. Regions University. 22 Feb.
2007 <http://libsys.uah.edu:6142/ips/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-
Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T003&prodId=IPS&docId=A98256731&source=gale
&srcprod=EAIM&userGroupName=naal_scu&version=1.0>.
“Charles Laverne Singleton.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 1 Jan 2007, 20:29 UTC.
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 22 Feb 2007. <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/
index.php?title=Charles_Laverne_Singleton&oldid=97784422>.
Donald, Mark. "Guilty But Insane in The Legislature." Texas Lawyer 20.12 (May 24,
2004): NA. Academic OneFile. Thomson Gale. Regions University. 22 Feb. 2007.
<http://libsys.uah.edu:6142/ips/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-
Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T003&prodId=IPS&docId=A117057323&source=gal
e&srcprod=AONE&userGroupName=naal_scu&version=1.0>.
Holland, Gina. "Supreme Court considers test of insanity defense." Fulton County Daily
Report (April 19, 2006): NA. General Reference Center Gold. Thomson Gale. Regions
University. 22 Feb. 2007 <http://libsys.uah.edu:6142/ips/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-
Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T003&prodId=IPS&docId=A145252378&source=gal
e&srcprod=GRGM&userGroupName=naal_scu&version=1.0>.
Murdock, Deroy. “Legal Insanity.” National Review Online. 20 Nov. 2003. 22 Feb 2007.
<http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200311200833.asp>.
Stout, Martha, Ph.D. The Sociopath Next Door. New York: Broadway Books, 2005.
Vatz, Richard E. “Those crazy insanity pleas. (AMERICAN JUSTICE).” USA Today
(Magazine). 135.2736 (Sept 2006): 57(1). Expanded Academic ASAP. Thomson Gale.
Regions University. 22 Feb. 2007. <http://libsys.uah.edu:6142/ips/infomark.do?
&contentSet=IAC-Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T003&prodId=IPS&docId=
A154693557&source=gale&srcprod=EAIM&userGroupName=naal_sco&version=1.0>.