The New York State Department of Mental Hygiene and the Division of Criminal Justice Services jointly administered a survey questionnaire to 1,000 legal professionals who subscribed to a criminal law journal. Of the 293 usable returned questionnaires, 31 percent came from public defenders and private attorneys, 38 percent from district attorneys, 22 percent from judges, and 10 percent from those holding some combination of attorney, public defender, or district attorney position. The NGRI defense was viewed as working very well or fairly well by 39 percent of the respondents, whereas 61 percent believed it was working fairly poorly or very poorly. Judges held the most favorable opinions of the defense. The respondents indicated that the defense's main problems center on poor statutory definitions and vagueness in the law, which cause its uneven application; a lack of understanding of the law by juries and the public; overreliance on psychiatric testimony which is imprecise and superficial; and the inaccurately perceived lack of judicial review over the release of acquitted defendants to the community by the Department of Mental Hygiene. Respondents felt that the insanity defense is used mainly for violent crimes; that it is used infrequently, often without a jury; and that it is usually unsuccessful. The respondents felt that preferable alternatives would be plea of 'guilty, but insane,' or a bifurcated trial system to determine first whether a crime was committed and second whether a penal or nonpenal disposition should be used. These two options would eliminate psychiatric testimony from the determination of guilt or innocence and would more frequently commit the defendant to a correctional facility, where release would not be determined by the Department of Mental Hygiene. It was concluded that survey results reflected the trend toward handling criminal deviance by incarceration rather than hospitalization after acquittal. Four tables and four notes are provided.