Agencies
Services
NGRI Legal Context
History of the Insanity Defense
The United States Supreme Court held in Kahler v. Kansas that states need not have an insanity defense and have wide latitude in determining the scope of that defense. However, forty-five states, including Illinois, provide the defense of insanity. Some years ago Illinois narrowed its defense, eliminating “volitional” impairments (i.e., intoxicated or drugged condition) and recognizing only “cognitive” impairments:
“A person is not criminally responsible for conduct if at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or mental defect, he lacks substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct.” 720 ILCS 5/6-2(a).
Both the United States Supreme Court and the Illinois Supreme Court have held that an acquittal by reasons of insanity is a complete acquittal, not a sentencing alternative (Jones v. United States and People v. Harrison). In Jones v. United States, the Supreme Court authorized the automatic commitment of persons found Not Guilty by Reasons of Insanity (often referred to in Illinois as “NGRIs”). However, in Foucha v. Louisiana the Supreme Court held that an NGRI cannot continue to be confined unless she or he remains both dangerous and mentally ill.
Illinois law does not permit the automatic commitment of an individual with NGRI legal status. Rather, following an acquittal, an individual with NGRI legal status must be given a prompt hearing and released unless the State proves by clear and convincing evidence that:
“due to mental illness, [he or she] is reasonably expected to inflict serious physical harm upon himself or another and who would benefit from inpatient care or is in need of inpatient care.” 730 ILCS 5/5-2-4(a-1)(B)
Illinois has a complex statute governing the confinement of individuals with NGRI legal status which includes provisions for court approval of on-grounds and off-grounds passes, home visits, and conditional and unconditional release.
Illinois Insanity Defense Standard
The Illinois insanity defense statute is codified under Illinois Criminal Code 720 ILCS 5/6-2:
“A person is not criminally responsible for conduct if at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or mental defect, he lacks substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct.” 720 ILCS 5/6-2
The burden of proof is on the individual to provide clear and convincing evidence to support a NGRI finding.
Thiem Date
The Thiem Date refers to the maximum period of time that an individual found NGRI may remain under court jurisdiction and IDHS supervision. The Thiem date is when the criminal case and conditions of the conditional release officially expire, and IDHS monitoring and court jurisdiction must end. The term originates from People v. Thiem, which established that a person acquitted by reason of insanity cannot remain committed or under conditional release supervision longer than the maximum sentence they could have received if convicted of the underlying offense. (People v. Thiem 82 Ill. App. 3d 956, 403 N.E.2d 647 (Ill. App. Ct. 1980)).
The Thiem date serves as an important legal safeguard that balances public safety interests with constitutional protections against indefinite confinement. While all individuals must be discharged by the Thiem Date, it’s common for individuals to be discharged sooner.
Previous Section
Next Section