In article ,
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

But LEGALLY mentally ill? You may believe going in that a person is
clincally mentally ill, but wouldn't you still have to look at the
evidence for the legal definition?

That is a problem as they should be the same. Mentally ill people that do
horrific crimes should not be put back into society. The only difference is
where they spend their time.

IF the crime is the result of the mental illness why not? Get them
treated, the mental illness goes away and so does the reason for the
incarceration. Purest form of rehab in this context.
Federally the standard is outlined in the Comprehensive Crime
Control Act. The federal insanity defense now requires the defendant to
prove, by "clear and convincing evidence," that "at the time of the
commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a
result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate
the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts" (18 U.S.C. §
17). This is generally viewed as a return to the "knowing right from
wrong" standard.
Also, the use of this defense is not all that frequent. According
to an eight-state study the insanity defense is used in less than 1% of
all court cases and, when used, has only a 26% success rate. Of those
cases that were successful, 90% of the defendants had been previously
diagnosed with mental illness.

Many states now have a 3rd option of guilty but mentally ill. They
serve a "normal" sentence in a mental institution until better and
then transferred to a regular prison.
The definitions aren't the same because the needs aren't the same.
The medical definition (s), are for purposes of diagnosis and treatment.
The legal definition for holding people responsible for their criminal
actions. There is a certain (very small area) where the two overlap.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke