The guilty but mentally ill (GBMI) verdict may be regarded as a highly controversial phenomenon that has been nonetheless adopted by a considerable number of states regardless of little empirical support and sound criticism. In general, it is a particular verdict option that authorizes both psychiatric treatment and conventional criminal sanctions for defendants whose criminal offense was determined by their insanity (Bartol & Bartol, 2020). In other words, in the case of the GBMI verdict, juries and judges formally acknowledge a perpetrator’s mental illness and find him guilty of criminal violation at the same time.
The GBMI verdict was introduced due to the increased number of crimes committed by defendants who had been previously released as not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI). At the same time, the GBMI verdict was introduced as an option for a judge to define a sentence on the basis of an individual’s guilt and insanity. Its purpose is to minimize the cases of NGRI acquittees’ early release based on the GBMI verdict’s peculiarities. Thus, a perpetrator who receives it is sentenced as any other defendant found guilty (Bartol & Bartol, 2020). At the same time, he receives mental treatment to the extent determined by the court. The main peculiarity of the GBMI verdict is the offender’s serving out the rest of his sentence if and after his mental health is defined as stabilized (Bartol & Bartol, 2020). This fact is a major difference from the conditions of the NGRI verdict that presupposes the release of the insanity-defense acquittee from psychiatric commitment when he is no longer dangerous for society.
The GBMI verdict remains highly controversial as it presupposes rehabilitation and societal compassion for an offender along with the criminal sentence and the system’s control. On the one hand, mentally ill defendants receive necessary treatment while being punished for their criminal offenses. In addition, the verdict protects community members keeping those defendants imprisoned for the rest of their sentences even if their mental health is improved. In turn, in the case of the NGRI verdict, the absence of defendants’ guilt is justified by their insanity. Moreover, staying imprisoned with stabilized mental health allows GBMI defendants to realize their mistakes and prevent crime recidivism.
On the other hand, the GBMI verdict is frequently criticized for being a misleading option introduced for political reasons that does not have any particular purpose and confuses jurors. Biases may occur on the basis of their individual assumptions and lead to incorrect decisions. For instance, jurors may perceive a particular defendant as more dangerous guided by prejudice, stereotyped thinking, and personal beliefs and choose the GBMI verdict prioritizing community safety. However, in this case, jurors acknowledge a defendant’s mental illness and responsibility for crime commitment at the same time, even if a defendant may not realize it due to insanity.
In addition, the GBMI verdict creates inequities for imprisoned perpetrators. According to its conditions, GBMI defendants receive mental health support, and multiple treatment services are available for them. At the same time, a considerable number of offenders who were found guilty face the deterioration of their mental health and the occurrence of various mental disorders while being in prison. However, their sentences do not presuppose the availability of treatment services. Thus, the GBMI verdict contributes to the formation of a particular system in which a type of sentence presupposes discrimination and inequities.