What outcome might a jury determine for a defendant found to be insane?

A jury may determine that a defendant found to be insane is completely excused from criminal liability due to their lack of understanding of the nature or wrongfulness of their actions at the time of the crime. This legal concept is rooted in the belief that individuals who are deemed insane do not possess the requisite mental state or capacity to be held fully accountable for their criminal behavior.

In jurisdictions following the M’Naghten Rule or similar standards, a defendant's insanity may lead the jury to conclude that the person was unable to distinguish right from wrong during the commission of the offense. As a result, such a verdict leads to a total excusal from criminal liability rather than imposing a punishment that typically applies to those who are found guilty.

The other outcomes, while they may seem plausible in different contexts, do not apply specifically to defendants found to be legally insane. "Guilty but mentally ill" recognizes some degree of responsibility despite mental health issues, which is not the case for someone deemed insane. "Complete punishment regardless of state of mind" and "mandatory rehabilitation" imply accountability or prescribed measures that do not align with the legal implications of an insanity finding. Thus, excusal from criminal liability represents a fundamental principle in ensuring that justice accounts for the mental