“Not Guilty by Reasons of Insanity” (NGRI) has often perplexed even the most severe legal and psychiatric professionals for centuries. Furthermore, it has transcended into pop culture, as a “loophole” for the criminal society. However, the insanity defense is only used in less than 1% of criminal cases and is used successfully in only 10-25% of such cases (Torry & Billick, 2010). In order to be acquitted by reason of insanity, the legal team, along with psychiatric professionals, must demonstrate that the defendant is not legally responsible for the crime, despite the evidence that they carried out the crime. They must also demonstrate that the defendant suffered or currently suffers from a mental disorder and that he/she has impaired logical control of his or her actions (Smith, 2011). According to Torry and Billick (2010), “A criminal act must have two components: evil intent (mens rea, literally “guilty mind”) and action (actus reus, literally “guilty act”)” (p.225), therefore the The accused must demonstrate that he has no “mens rea” or “actus reus”. Equally important to note, the act itself must be voluntary and conscious. Most psychological and judicial justice systems are reluctant to hold defendants who lack the ability to distinguish “right from wrong” (Torry and Billick, 2010). NGRIs have been shown to be difficult to apply over many years. During the early 1980s, many states modernized their NGRI defense and even abolished it altogether. Instead of allowing the defense of “not guilty by reason of insanity,” many states have established a verdict of “guilty but mentally ill” (GBMI) (Smith, 2011). To ensure that individuals w...... half of the paper ......r. Additionally, states that have abolished the defense have implemented stricter criteria for applying or proving the defense, approximately a quarter of states have established a separate verdict of "guilty but mentally ill." This is used as an alternative to (not in place of) the insanity defense" (Torry and Billick, 2010). This verdict is offered to the jury when deliberation concludes that the defendant committed the offending act, but suffers from a mental disorder, perhaps, not to the level necessary to satisfy the insanity defense (Torry and Billick, 2010.) As many states have shortened their “Insanity Defense” laws, or abolished them, the federal government. of the United States should mandate that the insanity defense be abolished and, in its place, a verdict be issued allowing mentally insane persons to serve their sentences and yet receive treatment during their prison sentence.