Why NGRI should be abolished as a defense in all courts

I believe that the use of the “not guilty by reason of insanity” (NGRI) clause as a defense to a crime should be abandoned. It would be wise to change the McNaughten and Irresistible Impulse standards, the American Law Institute standards, and the Durham insanity standards to Guilty with a Mental Illness. The result would be the same in terms of potential destinations. A determination of whether an individual continues to pose a danger to himself or herself or others will remain the standard for release from a medical examiner’s office. It would also be possible to be placed in a penitentiary with psychiatric care, following a sentence deemed appropriate by the court.

Just as drugs and alcohol do not absolve you from guilt for a crime, neither should mental illness.

The arguments for defending NGRI are usually that many experts disagree with the thesis. The final decision then rests with a jury or judge, who must wade through a morass of psychobabble and decide which expert is the most credible based on testimony and references.

Data shows that even with this defense, only 1.4% of all cases are successful.

A successful NGRI defense allows for treatment in a psychiatric facility rather than a sentence in a correctional facility, or the latter, or both. A finding of guilt due to mental illness would produce the same result.

The data shows that since 2013, in only three cases has the defendant successfully used and won the NGRI defense in court. This is not to say that the defense has not been used in other cases, but only in these three cases has it been successful. They require examination.

Richard Rojas killed a teenage tourist and injured dozens of pedestrians when he drove his car through Times Square on May 18, 2017. There was no doubt that 31-year-old Rojas was behind the wheel of the car. The court found that he was “not responsible by reason of mental illness or infirmity” on one count: murder and 23 counts of assault against him.

Defense lawyers said Rojas had become paranoid since he was kicked out of U.S. military service, and even prosecutors handling the case agreed that the driver had heard voices during his moment of madness.

Mr. Rojas joined the Navy in 2011, but his service ended following his arrest in 2012, when he allegedly beat up a taxi driver after deeming him too much of a burden. He was court-martialed and spent time in military prison since the Navy assumed jurisdiction in the case.

Rojas, a Bronx resident, had several run-ins with the law before his rampage, including a May 2017 arrest in which he held a knife to a notary’s throat and claimed the person had stolen his ID card.

It is clear that his behavior required intervention, although without help he seems to have become trapped and left to his own paranoid thinking.

Cody Metzker-Madsen, who was 17 in 2014, was charged with first-degree murder in the death of Dominic Elkins, his 5-year-old foster brother – after testifying he thought he was killing a goblin. He was found not guilty by reason of insanity resulting from death by beating.

The little boy’s body was found at the bottom of a ravine near their home in Logan, Iowa. He died from blunt force trauma to the head and drowning.

During the trial, Metzker-Madsen testified that he saw goblins fighting people he knew. He also said he didn’t realize it was his foster brother when he started hitting him with a brick and pushing his head under water.

The judge ordered Metzker-Madsen committed to a state medical facility after the trial.

Cody Metzker-Madsen has a history of mental health issues and has been hospitalized and on probation, although the exact nature of his illness was unclear.

Buchanan County Sheriff’s Deputies recently arrested Cody Metzker-Madsen, now 28, on June 24, 2023, on one count of intentionally causing serious injury for attacking his roommate while in the hospital. He has been in hospital since 2024.

Chelsea Thornton of Louisiana, then 28, was accused of shooting her 3-year-old son, causing his death, and drowning her 4-year-old daughter in her apartment in 2012.

Five experts were called in the Thornton case, but there was no agreement between them. She apparently explained that the reason for killing her children was to save them from poverty.

She faced life in prison without parole before a judge ruled on insanity.

In 2020, Ms. Thornton was moved to a group home.

In each of these cases, a finding of guilt due to mental illness would produce similar results.

The following two cases would have ended with the same results as determined.

James Holmes, who murdered 12 people and injured 70 others in July 2012 when he stormed a midnight screening of the Batman film “The Dark Knight Rises” in Aurora, Colorado. He was sentenced to multiple life sentences. No one doubted that he suffered from mental illness, but that did not alleviate his guilt.

Ahmad Al Aliwi Al-Issa who shot and killed 10 people at a grocery store in Boulder, Colorado, in 2021, was sentenced to 10 life sentences and an additional 1,334 years in state prison.

A guilty person suffering from mental illness left the option of being placed in prison or being hospitalized in a psychiatric hospital. It is likely that the jury was not satisfied with the possibility of freeing the above two people. Therefore, a person guilty of mental illness would also allow for a prison sentence.

It is much wiser to use psychologists and psychiatrists to make a differential diagnosis in which they are skilled. What is not usually an NGRI defense is that the defendant suffers from a mental illness. Whether they knew right from wrong or not, or whether their thinking at the time of the crime was such that they were unable to appreciate the unlawful nature of their conduct or to bring their conduct into line with the requirements of the law, is irrelevant. If they were guilty of a crime and suffered from a serious mental illness at the time, they may be placed in a forensic hospital or sent to prison.

The decision to release a defendant is generally based on the recommendations of the treatment team. Although this decision often needs to be presented to the court, legal experts do not have the skills to make this decision and courts usually follow the panel’s recommendations. Thus, a guilty person suffering from mental illness deems the person guilty and yet allows for hospitalization for mental health care or deprivation of liberty.

In summary, the reality is that the NGRI defense is not really a legal defense. It was started by Daniel McNaughtenin in 1843 in England, when he shot the Prime Minister’s secretary, Edward Drummond, under the illusion that he was the Prime Minister.

It was the first attempt to create a substitute for prison for people suffering from mental illness. The intention was to provide them with a different standard and alternative care.

Over the centuries, this defense has evolved into a legal excuse when there is no other defense or evidence of mental illness. A battle of experts ensued to convince the courts that abnormal thinking caused by serious mental illness makes a defendant less “responsible.”

Juries and judges are reluctant to grant a successful NGRI ruling, most likely because most people whose defenses are successful are released early. For victims and their families, this prevents closure and blame. A guilty mentally ill person serves all parties.