Final answer:
The 'guilty but mentally ill' verdict allows the justice system to recognize a defendant's mental illness while still holding them accountable for their crimes. It ensures defendants receive necessary treatment while the legal system upholds public safety. Landmark decisions have shaped the application of this verdict along with the treatment and evaluation of mentally ill defendants.
Step-by-step explanation:
Guilty but Mentally Ill Verdict:
Several states have established the verdict of guilty but mentally ill as an option when a defendant pleads not guilty by reason of insanity. This alternative acknowledges the mental illness of the defendant while still holding them accountable for their actions. Defendants must understand the charges against them and be competent to stand trial. Incompetence due to mental illness may lead to cases being dismissed. A finding of guilty but mentally ill allows defendants to receive the treatment they need, while ensuring public safety by imposing appropriate criminal penalties.
The Supreme Court's landmark decision in Atkins v. Virginia set a precedent against the execution of people with intellectual disabilities. This, combined with the precedent set by Dusky v. United States, ensures that defendants receive a competency evaluation before proceeding to trial or execution. Through such legal adjustments, the justice system attempts to balance the need for fair punishment with the recognition of the defendant's mental health needs.