The testimony explores the proper scope and definition of the insanity defense, the assignment of the burden of proving insanity (whether it is on the prosecution or defense and whether by a preponderance of the evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt), and the scope of psychiatric testimony. The testimony also examines commitment procedures for persons found not guilty by reason of insanity. Issues debated include whether or not the current insanity defense should be retained and modified or abolished, whether a focus on elements of the offense and sentencing discretion would be sufficient to do justice to mentally ill defendants in the absence of an insanity defense, and whether the guilty-but-mentally-ill verdict is an appropriate alternative to the insanity defense. The parameters of psychiatric testimony are discussed regarding expert involvement in conclusions about legal insanity and diagnoses of mental illness. Testimony on commitment procedures considers whether persons found not guilty by reason of insanity should be treated differently from other citizens being considered for admission to or release from civil commitment for psychiatric treatment. For individual statements, see NCJ 94539-41. Relevant writings, correspondence, and written statements are included.