Guilty or insane? Or, even, mentally competent to stand trial? Judges and juries are often required to decide between guilt and insanity in cases of violent crime; two of which are currently playing out on opposite ends of this state. How they answer these questions has a profound impact, not only on the defendants but, on the lives of many others as well.

Yet, Washington law deprives them of an option already on the books in a number of other states that serves justice and protects the public. The time to allow a "guilty but insane" verdict in this state is long overdue. However, the need for immediate reform doesn't end there. Laws to determine the ability of defendants to understand the charges against them, and assist in their defense, must be retooled so those who have committed violent crimes remain locked up forever, when evidence clearly shows they are guilty, even if they are mentally unfit to stand trial.

The insanity defense is being employed in the high-profile case of Naveed Haq, who killed one woman and left five others badly wounded in a shooting at the Jewish Federation in Seattle in July 2006. Mr. Haq's attorney is not arguing for his client's acquittal from aggravated first-degree murder and attempted murder charges. Instead, a psychiatrist testified in King County Superior Court recently that Mr. Haq was in a psychotic state when he opened fire. Jurors will be asked to decide whether the defendant was insane at the time of the shooting or had the "ability to premeditate ... [and] to form the intent to kill," even if that ability was partially impaired, as the prosecution contends.

Meanwhile, in Spokane, a first-degree murder case against Natalie Rose Orth has been put on hold. Accused of shooting her roommate with a shotgun earlier this year, Ms. Orth, who describes herself as schizophrenic, has been ordered to undergo a mental evaluation. And a King County Superior Court judge, in another similar case, recently sentenced Samson Berhe to Western State Hospital until he is no longer considered a danger to society.

The judge found Mr. Berhe, who gunned down a popular high school tennis coach in West Seattle three years ago, not guilty of murder by reason of insanity because he was either unable to perceive what he was doing that day, or unable to tell right from wrong. Beyond the fact that the victim and his family have been denied justice, Mr. Berhe could be released in just a few years should psychiatrists determine that he has regained his mental health and a judge agrees and grants him freedom.

There is a much better way for justice to be served in cases of violent crime where the defendant's sanity is an issue. As a reporter in Idaho and then Alaska in the early 1980s, I covered legislative action that adopted the "guilty but insane" verdict option in both states. The Idaho Legislature acted after John Hinkley, who tried to assassinate President Reagan in March 1981, was ruled insane and escaped a criminal sentence. Mr. Hinkley's mental condition has "improved" to the point where now he is granted unsupervised furloughs from the institution where he is "confined." This despite the fact that he never had to account for his crime. Alaska's law came a year later in response to the deaths of four teenagers who were gunned down by a drifter in a wooded Anchorage park.

The jury in his first-degree murder trial didn't buy the insanity defense, and now he is serving four 99-year sentences consecutively. Nevertheless, the Alaska Legislature recognized the loophole in the insanity defense and quickly closed it.

Unfortunately, rights ascribed to defendants in Washington too often outweigh the rights of victims, dead or alive, and their families, to say nothing of the public, that has a right to expect protection from future violent acts by dangerous criminals.

A "guilty but insane" verdict encompasses the gray area in the law that currently diverts the attention of judges and juries away from the single, relevant question: Does the evidence show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime of which they are accused? Yes or no?

If a jury finds the defendant guilty as charged, but rules they were insane at the time, the convict will begin serving the sentence at a facility for the criminally insane. Later, if the convict is determined to have regained their mental health, they are sent to a regular prison to serve the remainder of their sentence, rather than simply being released back into society. Justice is served and the public is protected.