The problem of legal liability in the case of individuals with mental disorders

The issue of legal liability in the case of individuals with mental disabilities has become a topic of increasing controversy after the case of John Hinckley, Jr., justified by insanity, for an attempt to assassinate President Reagan in 1981. Many Americans were offended by this verdict and felt that defending themselves under the cover of insanity was a legal loophole that allowed too many guilty to remain at large. In response, Congress passed the Law on Reform Protection on the basis of madness, which contains a number of provisions that impede the defendant from legal liability.

For example, this law replaces the wording of the American Institute of Law "there was no significant opportunity ... to evaluate ..." with the phrase "unable to evaluate"; it sets the condition that a mental illness or defect must be “serious” (this excludes non-psychotic disorders, such as an antisocial personality), and it transfers the burden of proof from defense to defense (now it’s not up to the prosecution to prove that the moment of the crime, and the defense must prove that he was insane, and do this by presenting "clear and convincing evidence").
This law applies to all cases considered in federal courts, and about half of the state courts. The result of its introduction is still too early to evaluate.
Another attempt to clarify the legal defense on the basis of insanity is a verdict of the type “guilty but mentally ill”. Originally proposed in the state of Michigan, it was adopted in 11 states (in some of these states it replaces the innocence verdict on the basis of insanity, in others it is an additional option). In general, the law allows a person to be found guilty, but mentally ill, if the defendant was found to have a significant violation of thinking or mood, he suffered from it at the time of the crime and it significantly disturbed his mind, behavior, ability to recognize reality or the ability to cope with ordinary life .

The action of the verdict “guilty but mentally ill”, however, does not achieve the same effect as the verdict of legal insanity. The verdict “guilty but mentally ill” allows judges to condemn a person whom they consider dangerous, and at the same time seeks to ensure the provision of psychotherapeutic treatment to him. Such a person may receive treatment in prison or first receive treatment in a psychiatric clinic, and then return to prison when he is deemed fit to serve his sentence. The problem remains with whether treatment in any of these places will be sufficient for the rehabilitation of this person.