Commentary: Punishing the unpunishable--the abuse of psychiatry to confine those we love to hate.

I commend John Melville and David Naimark for their commentary in this issue of the Journal demonstrating how the guilty but mentally ill (GBMI) verdict perverts the insanity defense by encouraging jurors to find insane defendants guilty (but mentally ill) and by imposing punishment on those found GBMI that is more severe than would have been imposed on them if they had simply been found guilty. I applaud their characterization of the consequences of a GBMI verdict as “punishment,” because that is what it is, rather than some euphemistic nonequivalent, such as “treatment” or “incapacitation of the dangerous,” which it is not. They have told it like it is, not like we claim it is. I write, however, to suggest that criminal defendants found GBMI are only one group of mentally disordered individuals whom a frightened and vengeful society wrongfully punishes by confining because it deems them dangerous. There are others worth discussing.