The guilty but mentally ill (GBMI) verdict is an option that allows juries and judges to establish that a defendant is guilty of committing an offense while formally acknowledging that the defendant has some form of a mental illness. This is not a replacement for the insanity defense but it does however present an alternative verdict option. This plea is most common when there is evidence presented on the defendant that proves either a lack of appreciation for the wrongness of their actions, or a lack of understanding of the penalties of their actions. The standard is still very high. The guilty but mentally ill plea’s foundation is similar to a standard guilty plea; however it enhances the fact that the defendant needs mental health treatment in addition to the punishment of their crime.
The guilty but mentally ill plea was first adopted in Michigan in 1982. It stemmed from the 1974 case of People vs. McQuillan. It was found that it is unconstitutional to detain people who were found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) for indeterminate periods of time because it violates their due process and equal protection rights; this is where the GBMI was implemented. If a defendant has a guilty but mentally ill verdict they are sentenced the same as a regular guilty plea. It is then in the courts hands to determine the type and extent of treatment the defendant requires. If/when the defendant is considered to be stable; they will then serve out the remainder of their sentence in prison. In order to be pronounced guilty but mentally ill the defendant must be evaluated for psychiatric treatment. If treatment is deemed necessary, a mental health plan is put into place for that specific person.
The idea behind the guilty but mentally ill plea option was that it would reduce the number of insanity acquittals and not allow for the not guilty but reason of insanity cases to be released early. It is a middle of the road solution. This was something new and progressive but not as difficult to prove as not guilty by reason of insanity. There are critics who argue that the guilty but mentally insane verdict does not serve a particular purpose and does not have a real reason to be in place. The fear is that it is more political than it is for the defendant in question. It may potentially confuse a jury into thinking that it is some form of a compromise and they are helping the defendant. These are potential risks of finding a defendant guilty but mentally ill however, they have not proven to be credible and there is no research to back the theories.
In
essence, the guilty but mentally ill plea forces offender’s to be criminally
responsible for their actions, but also allows for the proper care and
treatment for their mental health illness. As of right now, the guilty but mentally ill
plea has only been adopted by twenty of the states but many experts have come
to the conclusion that whereas it does
not necessarily impact sentencing or the punishment, it does however fill a gap
by flagging defendants for mental health treatment in prisons. In almost all
cases, this is a critical step in forming a treatment process while the
defendant serves out their respected sentences. Supports of the guilty but mentally ill plea claim that there is more justice served by this
trial outcome than in not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) cases. This is
because those who are found guilty but mentally ill are held accountable for
their actions and also are provided the opportunity to restore their mental
stability, unlike those in NGRI pleas.