Impact of change in legal standard for those adjudicated not guilty by reason of insanity 1975-1979.

In Michigan, during the middle of the last decade, a combination of new legislation and a state supreme court ruling significantly altered the definition of legal insanity and the disposition of those individuals that were adjudicated Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI). In early September 1974, the Michigan Supreme Court upheld a lower court's ruling in People v. McQuillan that found the state's automatic commitment statute for those persons adjudicated NGRI was in violation of their right to due process and equal protection under the law. 1 The court ruled that an individual acquitted by reason of insanity could be held for a specified p~riod of time (sixty days) for the purpose of observation and evaluation of their current mental status. However, at the conclusion of this diagnostic commitment, the defendants are entitled to receive the same due process and equal protection, regarding commitment and release criteria, as provided for those individuals that have not perpetrated a crime and are civilly committed for psychiatric treatment. In anticipation of the McQuillan ruling, the Michigan Legislature passed the revised Mental Health Code of 1974,2 which provides for the diagnostic evaluation of all persons acquitted by reason of insanity. Psychiatrists then make recommendations to the probate court as to whether they meet the criteria for involuntary civil commitment. Essentially, this meant that an NGRI must be released, regardless of the severity of the offense, unless he/she is considered "a person requiring treatment."3 In 1975, additional legislation was promulgated which provided a new definition for legal insanity4 and created the Guilty but Mentally III (GBMI) verdict.~ The new test for insanity was a modified version of that offered by the American Law Institute Model Penal Code and was ratified with the legislative intent of ensuring that defendants with personality disorders or no mental illness would not qualify for an NGRI acquittal. The GBMI legislation provided the judicial system with