Most states have long recognized a form of the insanity defense, based on the defendant’s mental illness, defect, or inability to understand that the criminal act was wrong. In pleading an insanity defense, the defendant admits the criminal conduct, but asserts a lack of culpability based on mental illness. Many states still model their insanity defense on the old English rule of law (the M’Naghten rule from 1843) in which the defendant asserts he (1) did not know the nature and quality of the act, or (2) did not know that it was wrong.

And it is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under any federal statute (federal law) that, at the time of the offense, the defendant was unable to appreciate the nature and quality of his acts, or the wrongfulness of his acts. See 18 U.S.C. §17.

When a defendant is found not guilty by reason of insanity it does not mean he necessarily goes free. States often have requirements for treatment or institutionalization after such a finding. And some states require, at a minimum, confinement in a treatment institution or facility for the length of time the person would have received if convicted—so a defendant may end up spending more time confined than if he did not raise such a defense.

The law regarding the availability, definitions, and nature of the insanity defense vary from state to state, and are usually located in a state’s statutes.

In Vermont, the insanity defense is recognized and allows a defendant to assert that they are not culpable for their criminal actions due to mental illness. Vermont follows a version of the M'Naghten rule, which requires the defendant to demonstrate that, at the time of the offense, they either did not understand the nature and quality of the act or did not know that the act was wrong due to a mental disease or defect. This is considered an affirmative defense, and the burden of proof is on the defendant. If a defendant is found not guilty by reason of insanity, they are not automatically set free. Vermont law may require the individual to undergo treatment or be institutionalized. The specific period of confinement or treatment can vary and may be equivalent to or longer than the sentence that would have been imposed if the defendant had been convicted of the offense. The federal standard for the insanity defense, as outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 17, similarly allows a defendant to claim they were unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of their acts due to a mental condition at the time of the offense. The application of the insanity defense and the consequences of a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity are subject to both Vermont state statutes and federal law, depending on the jurisdiction of the case.