Abstract
The purpose of this article is to review the law and literature involving the guilty but mentally ill (GBMI) verdict to provide a clear conceptual examination of the actual intent and impact of the verdict. Such an examination may help to clarify continuing debates and confusion about the nature of GBMI and its success in addressing perceived problems with insanity acquittals. This review suggests that the actual intentions of the GBMI verdict are associated with minimal and largely unsuccessful results. In addition, the typical absence of treatment for defendants found GBMI appears unsurprising given that the provision of treatment for mentally ill offenders is not a legal intention of the GBMI verdict. Finally, the introduction of the GBMI verdict has had unintended negative consequences that include increased confusion among jurors and the legal profession and possible increased occurrence of inappropriate verdicts. In conclusion, significant problems can be noted with regard to both the intent and impact of the GBMI verdict.
