It is argued that the insanity defense is plagued by logical inconsistencies and prone to distortions that are particularly apparent in the 90 percent of cases that end in a guilty verdict, split verdict cases, and the rare cases of feigned insanity. The insanity defense makes a mockery of the criminal justice system, it undermines the law, and offends the public sense of justice. Further, its practical application is hurtful to the population it was intended to benefit, and it results in the involuntary hospitalization of individuals who are not mentally ill and may not have been mentally ill to begin with. Statutes abolishing the defense should include a provision for acquittal of a defendant who lacked the state of mind required as an element of the offense as a result of mental illness. In addition, such statutes should provide for psychiatric and psychological testimony when appropriate, comprehensive presentence evaluation, application of regular civil commitment law, and case disposition based on a balancing of the public need for protection and retribution and the defendant's need for rehabilitation and treatment. 64 notes and references.