{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04528985507246377, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.760416666666667, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Alternatives to the Insanity Defense

The insanity defense, so named from the verdict of “not guilty by reason of insantiy” (NGRI), has been a source of empassioned debate since its inception. More recently, the NGRI controversy was renewed by the verdict of NGRI in the case of John Hinckley, Jr. This article examines various issues and alternatives to the insanity defense, i.e., “guilty but mentally ill” (GBMI) and “not responsible by reason of insanity” (NRRI), that are evolving in the public arena today. An argument favoring NRRI is presented.