There is no danger-reduction potential in any feasible reform of incompetency-to-stand-trial procedures or the insanity defense, and mentally-disordered-sex-offender laws appear to be withering away of their own accord. The proposal of the Task Force on Violent Crime (1981) to enact a verdict of 'guilty but mentally ill' could result in significant increases in prison-to-hospital (and back again) transfers of convicted offenders, but it would have no implications for the incapacitation of dangerous persons, since offenders would be institutionalized for the same amount of time regardless of the institution they are in. Since the codes of virtually all States now include as a criterion for civil commitment the prediction of 'dangerous' or 'harmful' behavior, the mental health system appears to be doing all that it can (and more than many mental health professionals believe it should) to serve as an alternative intake system for the control of dangerousness. Lengthening the duration of civil commitment for 'dangerousness' might enhance its incapacitative effect, but given the research findings on the questionable validity of long-term predictions of violence, the lack of criminal legal status for such persons, and the ineffectiveness of treatment or violent person, such a move would threaten civil liberties and undermine the credibility of the mental health system. Tabular data are presented for the admission and census of mentally disordered offenders in U.S. facilities by legal status and gender. (Author summary modified)