THE MOST DIRECT WAY OF BRINGING PERSONS FOUND GUILTY OF A CRIMINAL ACT UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISABILITY, IS TO ABOLISH THE INSANITY DEFENSE. IF INSANITY WERE ABOLISHED AS A DEFENSE, HOWEVER, MANY DEFENDANTS MIGHT BE FOUND GUILTY OF A SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE EVEN IF PROOF OF INTENT WERE STILL REQUIRED. FURTHERMORE, UNDER THE CRIMINAL CODE IN PENNSYLVANIA FOR EXAMPLE, INSANE DEFENDANTS COULD BE CONVICTED OF CERTAIN CRIMES EVEN IF THE INSANITY DEFENSE WERE ABOLISHED. IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO AMEND STATE CODES OR CHANGE TRADITIONAL THINKING ABOUT MENS REA IN ORDER TO BRING PERSONS FOUND NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF INSANITY WITHIN GREATER SOCIETAL CONTROLS. STATE LEGISLATURES COULD ENACT A CRIMINAL MENTAL HEALTH PROCEDURES ACT THAT APPLIES TO ALL PERSONS ACCUSED OF CRIME AND FOUND INCOMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL OR NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF INSANITY. SUCH AN ACT WOULD PROVIDE FULL PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS HEARINGS AS A CONDITION OF CONFINEMENT, THE RIGHT TO TREATMENT, AND THE RIGHT TO REVIEW AND HABEAS CORPUS REMEDIES. IF THE INSANITY DEFENSE IS RETAINED, A SOLUTION INVOLVING A TWO-PART VERDICT IS PROPOSED. WHEN A DEFENDANT RAISES THE DEFENSE OF INSANITY, IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE STATE HAS PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE DEFENDANT COMMITTED THE PRESCRIBED ACT. IF THIS IS PROVED, THE JURY WOULD THEN ANSWER THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE DEFENDANT REALIZED THE NATURE OR QUALITY OF THE COMMITTED ACT. THE VERDICT COULD BE GUILTY BUT NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF INSANITY. IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE TO APPLY CONCEPTS THAT EVOLVED UNDER CIVIL COMMITMENT LAW TO PREVENT THE UNNECESSARY DETENTION OF NONDANGEROUS PERSONS ADJUDGED MENTALLY ILL TO PERSONS EXCUSED FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR A VIOLENT CRIME BY REASON OF INSANITY. SUCH PERSONS SHOULD BE CLASSIFIED AS OFFENDERS WHO NEED TREATMENT AND WHO SHOULD BE SENTENCED WITHIN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM TO AN APPROPIATE FACILITY. GIVEN THE INABILITY TO PREDICT WHO WILL OR WILL NOT REPEAT A VIOLENT CRIME, THE BURDEN OF PROVING NONDANGEROUSNESS AS A CONDITION OF RELEASE SHOULD BE ON THE DEFENDANT WHO HAS ALREADY DEMONSTRATED THE CAPACITY TO COMMIT A VIOLENT ACT. THE INSANITY DEFENSE IS VIEWED FROM A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE. CASE HISTORIES AND FOOTNOTES ARE INCLUDED. (DEP)