Law and Human Behavior

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 447–462 | Cite as

Measuring the effects of the guilty but mentally Ill (GBMI) verdict

Georgia's 1982 GBMI reform
  • Lisa A. Callahan
  • Margaret A. McGreevy
  • Carmen Cirincione
  • Henry J. Steadman


We studied effects of guilty but mentally ill (GBMI) legislation on use of the insanity defense in Georgia using data on all defendants entering an insanity plea before (1976–1981) and after (1982–1985) the introduction of the GBMI verdict. In contrast to earlier studies, our results indicated that GBMI did decrease the likelihood of an insanity verdict and affected the composition of those found not guilty by reason of insanity. Defendants pleading insanity and found GBMI were typically white males with a serious mental disorder, charged with murder or robbery in which an unrelated female victim was involved. The data also indicated that defendants who pleaded insanity and were found GBMI received harsher sentences than their guilty counterparts. We conclude that the GBMI verdict will make the insanity plea a less appealing option for mentally ill defendants.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allison, P. D. (1984).Event history analysis: Regression for longitudinal event data. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Appelbaum, P. (1982). The insanity defense: New calls for reform.Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 33, 13–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Benham v. Edwards, 501 F. Supp. 1050, 1076 (N.D. Ga. 1980).Google Scholar
  4. Blossfeld, H., Hamerle, A., & Mayer, K. U. (1989).Event history analysis: Statistical theory and application in the social sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Blunt, L. W., Stock, H. V. (1985). Guilty but mentally ill: An alternative verdict.Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 3, 49–67.Google Scholar
  6. Callahan, L. A., Steadman, H. J., McGreevy, M. A., & Robbins, P. C. (1991). The volume and composition of insanity defense pleas: An eight state study.Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 19, 331–338.Google Scholar
  7. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963).Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  8. Criss, M. L., & Racine, D. R. (1980). Impact of change in legal standard for those adjudicated not guilty by reason of insanity.Bulletin of American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 8 261–271.Google Scholar
  9. Faulstich, M. E. (1985). Effects upon social perceptions of the insanity plea.Psychological Reports, 55, 183–187.Google Scholar
  10. Fentiman, L. C. (1985). Gulty but mentally ill: The real verdict is guilty.Boston College Law Review, 26, 603–653.Google Scholar
  11. Finkel, J. J. (1990). Defacto departures from insanity instruction.Law and Human Behavior, 14, 105–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fox, J. (1984). Detecting changes of level and slope in repeated measures data.Sociological Methods and Research, 12, 263–277.Google Scholar
  13. Georgia Code Annotated § 17-7-131.Google Scholar
  14. Hans, V. P. (1986). An analysis of public attitudes toward the insanity defense.Criminology, 24, 393–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hans, V. P., & Slater, D. (1984). Plain crazy: Lay definitions of legal insanity.International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 7, 105–114.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Hauser S. (1981). Commitment and release of persons found not guilty by reason of insanity: A Georgia perspective.Georgia Law Review, 15, 1065–1103.Google Scholar
  17. Hawkins, M. R., & Pasewark, R. A. (1983). Characteristics of persons utilizing the insanity plea.Psychological Reports, 53, 191–195.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Janofsky, J. S., Vandeville, M. B., & Rappeport, J. R. (1989). Defendants pleading insanity: An analysis of outcome.Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 17, 203–210.Google Scholar
  19. Jeffrey, R. W., Pasewark, R. A., & Bieber, S. (1988). Insanity plea: Predicting not guilty by reason of insanity adjudications.Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 16, 35–39.Google Scholar
  20. Keilitz, I. (1987). Researching and reforming the insanity defense.Rutgers Law Review, 39, 289–322.Google Scholar
  21. Kirkland v. State, 166 Ga. App. 578 (1983).Google Scholar
  22. Klofas, J., & Weisheit, R. (1986). Pleading guilty but mentally ill: Adversarial justice and mental health.International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 9, 491–501.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Lewis-Beck, M. S. (1986).Interrupted time series in new tools for social scientists, W. D. Berry & M. S. Lewis-Beck (Eds.), Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 209–240.Google Scholar
  24. Mackay, R. D., & Kopelman, J. (1988). The operation of the “guilty but mentally ill” verdict in Pennsylvania.Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 247–268.Google Scholar
  25. McGraw, B., Farthing-Capowich, D., & Keilitz, I. (1985). The guilty but mentally ill plea and verdict: Current State of the knowledge.Villanova Law Review, 30, 117–191.Google Scholar
  26. Michigan Compiled Laws Annotated 768.36 (1982).Google Scholar
  27. Moran, R. (1985). The origin of insanity as a special verdict: The trial for treason of James Hadfield (1800).Law and Society Review, 19, 601–633.Google Scholar
  28. Pasewark, R. A., & Seidenzahl, D., (1979). Opinions concerning the insanity plea and criminality among mental patients.Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 7, 199–202.Google Scholar
  29. Pasewark, R. A., & McGinley, H. (1985). Insanity plea: National survey of frequency and success.Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 13, 101–108.Google Scholar
  30. People v. DeWitt, 463 N.E. 2d 742 (211 App. 1984).Google Scholar
  31. People v. McQuillan, 393 Mich. 511, 221 N.W. 2d 569 (1974).Google Scholar
  32. People v. Sorna, 88 Mich. App. 351, 362, 276 N. W. 2d 892 (1979).Google Scholar
  33. Petrella, R. C., Benedek, E. P., Bank, S. C., & Packer, I. K. (1985). Examining the application of the guilty and mentally ill verdict in Michigan.Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 36, 254–260.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Schmidt, P., & Whitte, A. D. (1988).Predicting recidivism using survival models, New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  35. Simonton, D. K. (1977). Cross-sectional time-series experiments: Some suggested statistical analyses.Psychological Bulletin, 84, 489–502.Google Scholar
  36. Slobogin, C. (1985). The guilty but mentally ill verdict: An idea whose time should not have come.George Washington Law Review, 53, 494–527.Google Scholar
  37. Smith, G. A., & Hall, J. A. (1982). Evaluating Michigan's guilty but mentally ill verdict: An empirical study.Journal of Law Reform, 16, 75–112.Google Scholar
  38. Steadman, J. J. (1985). Empirical research on the insanity defense.Annals, 477, 58–71.Google Scholar
  39. Steadman, H. J., & Cocozza, J. J. (1978) Public perceptions of the criminally insane.Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 29, 457–459.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Steadman, H. J., Keitner, L., Braff, J., & Arvanites, T. (1983). Factors associated with a successful insanity plea.American Journal of Psychiatry, 140, 401–405.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Stokman, C. L. J., & Heiber, P. G. (1984). The insanity defense reform act in New York State, 1980–1983.International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 7, 367–384.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lisa A. Callahan
    • 2
  • Margaret A. McGreevy
    • 2
  • Carmen Cirincione
  • Henry J. Steadman
  1. 1.Policy Research AssociatesDelmar
  2. 2.Russell Sage CollegeDelmar

Personalised recommendations