The Hinckley case has been subjected to immense public scrutiny, and the role of the insanity defense is once more being reviewed by the public, legislators, legal scholars, and concerned professionals. The media frenzy during the period of the trial has subsided, leaving numerous suggested changes at the Federal and State levels. The extent and impact of the insanity defense problem, however, must be placed in perspective by a statistical analysis of the use and success of the insanity defense. Studies in a variety of States show the infrequency of the successful insanity defense, so that even if the defense were eliminated, it would have an infinitesimal effect upon the course of events. The most dramatic recommendation flowing from the Hinckley case has been for the abolition of the defense. This does not resolve the problem because of the continuing requirement that the prosecution prove guilty intent in the commission of a crime. There is no likelihood that the courts would allow elimination of the intent necessary to establish culpability. Another recommended step is the addition of the plea of guilty but mentally ill. Such a verdict would yield both a punitive sentence and a mandated program of mental health services for the offender. This differs little from the abolition of the defense, since mental health services are supposed to be given to any offender diagnosed as mentally ill. Another alternative suggested is the rewriting of the substance of the insanity plea by creating new standards for such a finding. No clearly advantageous alternative is available, however, to replace the variations of the American Law Institute Rules which have been recently adopted in many jurisdictions. The most practical of the current suggestions is that the plea be restored to its traditional place as an affirmative defense, where the burden of proof remains with the defendant, relieving the prosecution of the requirement to prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt. Ten references are listed.