9

I was reading about the two types on insanity pleas, known as 'NGRI' (Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity) and 'GBMI' (Guilty But Mentally Ill). For example, a good excerpt is here on Google Books.

However, something very obvious is bothering me:

How can you have a legal system where on one hand we consider insane people not guilty of their crimes and on the other say that they can be guilty? Isn't it a contradiction?

If insanity is a valid "excuse" to escape responsibility for a crime, then why isn't it always a valid excuse? Why would we allow insane people then to be found guilty? We already acknowledge in our legal system that insane people are not at fault.

David Mulder
  • 1,245
  • 1
  • 8
  • 18
CodyBugstein
  • 508
  • 2
  • 13

1 Answers1

9

There is a clinical difference between insane and mentally ill.

An insane person is "so irrational in their behavior, or so unable to control it - so unlike 'us'" that they are not criminally liable (from earlier in the chapter).

Mental illness is "substantial disorder of thought or mood that substantially impairs judgement ..." (from near your link).

Clearly this is a subtle clinical distinction and will hinge on the expert evidence and the applicable law.

feetwet
  • 22,409
  • 13
  • 92
  • 189
Dale M
  • 237,717
  • 18
  • 273
  • 546