Individuals who exhibit cognitive impairment that limits or otherwise compromises their ability to understand consequence and make decisions and/or control their actions in accordance due to physical illness, disease, or disability at the time of legal offense cannot be reasonably held accountable for their actions, nor should they be legally judged by the same criteria as those criteria regarding mentally healthy individuals. A pardon or remission should be granted by the court, the affected individual should receive prompt, appropriate medical and psychological treatment, and further reprimand should be reserved for cases of repeat offense. Firstly, consider the individual suffering from an acute illness that affects their cognition at the time of offence (including tumors, encephalitis, cancers). Assuming an individual's cognitive function is significantly impaired at the time of legal offence, it is likely that the individual has behaved in an uncontrollable way that is not reliably …show more content…
However, because these individuals are not expected to improve or regain cognitive ability through rehabilitation efforts and may exhibit further incompetence that limits their ability to understand the implications of their offense, they are unlikely to benefit or be otherwise affected by traditional sanction or behavioral modification therapy. These individual may instead rely on certain symptomatic treatments and/or supportive care efforts (supportive living care, nursing homes, hospital commitment) to manage their behavior. The prevention of future offense then becomes reliant upon the attendance of a third party, and certain leniency should be allowed in the event of minor repeat
There is no simple right or wrong solution, there is simply choosing the best and most appropriate choice for the specific case. Choosing to use the combination of rehabilitation and deterrence is quite conflicting of one another. But some cases call for help and treatment, and so call for punishment. There are so many factors that contribute to a case, that the decision can be altered so fast by the smallest detail. The criminal justice system is complex, brutal, and sometimes unfair, but deciding on the right goal for the criminal can make all the
Incapacitation is a form of punishment that removes an offender from society. This model protects the public by getting the criminals off the street. Deterrence is implemented by punishing a person and using them as an example to deter others from criminal activity or through punishment that deters the individual from committing further acts. Rehabilitation is a prevention model that avoids future criminal activity of an offender by providing treatment and teaching them how to correct their path. Utilitarianism is consistent with preventative models of punishment and suggests that offenders act rationally and punishment that lowers crime will benefit society and outweighs individual harm.
Another facet to this concept of competency restoration is the idea of predicting restorability. The groundbreaking case Jackson v Indiana (1972) dealt with the issue of pre-trial involuntary commitment of an incompetent individual. Theon Jackson, a deaf-mute was charged with petty theft. During his competency evaluation, the physicians determined that Jackson’s intelligence was too low, he was therefore incompetent, and had a very small chance of competency restoration even if he were not a deaf-mute. Jackson was then involuntarily committed to a psychiatric hospital. An appeal was then filed, arguing that Jackson’s right to equal protection and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment were violated. The Supreme Court’s ruling is as
The Mental capacity Act 2005 is a very important piece of legislation, because it makes a real difference to the lives of people who may lack mental capacity. The act will empower patients to make their own decision; it will also protect people with lack capacity by providing them with a flexible framework that places individuals at the very heart of the decision-making process.it will make sure that the patients with lack of capacity participate as much as possible in any decisions made on their behalf, and that these are made in their best interests. It also allows people to plan ahead for a time in the future when they might lack the capacity, for any number of reasons, to make decisions for themselves. The Act covers a wide range of decisions and circumstances; the act is supported by the practical guidance, and the Code of Practice which provides information about how the act works in practice. (http://www.direct.gov.uk 2007)
Lipsey, M. W., Chapman, G. L., L & Enberger, N. A. (2001). Cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders. The annals of the american academy of political and social science, 578 (1), pp. 144--157.
Mentally ill offenders face many challenges while being incarcerated and after being released. Rehabilitation is effective on mentally ill offenders by reducing their symptoms of distress and improving their behavior.
If offenders are not attending or following the programs it could lead to unwanted activities
Apart from the apparent accident, victims may fear that the first crime will reoccur in the future. The fear, confusion, and hatred affecting accident victims, coupled with inaction by the judicial system may provoke others to also engage in drunk driving. Sometimes, the defense attorneys front a rationale that the suspect has mental issues and thus their actions cannot be counted on them because of psychological impairment (Karjalainen, Lintonen, Joukamaa, & Lillsunde, 2013). The dismissal of cases of cognitive dissonance increases the chance of the offenders repeating the action. Furthermore, even the courts know and classify these individuals as mentally ill patients in need of treatment and management of their
Lamb, H. R. (2004). Mentally ill persons in the criminal justice system: Some perspectives. Psychiatric Quarterly, 108-126.
In many cases, the culprit has been in and out of rehabilitation centers and or jail. These facilities have a common goal. Which is to correct those whom are
Crime can be described combination between both behavior and mental factors. This will prove incredibly crucial in the definition of crime in relation to mental illness. Many of those that commit crimes are not convicted due to their illness so it is important to note, for the purpose of this analysis, that all illegal activity is considered crime, regardless of conviction (Monahan and Steadman 1983).
Mental health and the criminal justice system have long been intertwined. Analyzing and understanding the links between these two subjects demands for a person to go in to depth in the fields of criminology, sociology, psychology, and psychiatry, because there are many points of view on whether or not a person’s criminal behavior is due to their mental health. Some believe that an unstable mental state of mind can highly influence a person’s decision of committing criminal actions. Others believe that mental health and crime are not related and that linking them together is a form of discrimination because it insinuates that those in our society that suffer from poor mental health are most likely to become a criminal due to their misunderstood behavior not being considered a normality in society. In this report I will go into detail of what mental health and mental illness is, what the differentiates a normal and a mentally unstable criminal, give examples of criminal cases where the defendant’s state of mind was brought up, introduce theories surrounding why one would commit crimes due to their mental health, and lastly I will discuss how the criminal justice system has been modified to accommodate mental health issues.
There are two kinds of reprimand: short and long reprimand. A study made Abramowitz, O'Leary, and Futtersak (1988) have compared the effects of short and long reprimands in an alternating treatment design. Over the course of the study, short reprimands resulted in significantly lower off-task rates than long reprimands. Reprimands that are immediate, unemotional, brief, and consistently backed up with consequences are clearly preferred to lengthy reprimands that are delayed, loud, emotional, and not matched to consequences. Abramowitz and O'Leary (1991) suggested that immediate reprimands result in much lower rates of off-task interactions with peers but do not change rates of off-task behaviors that do not involve peers. The authors hypothesized
... The source of the defendant’s mental abnormality is the greatest point of distinction between all of the defendants. Whether the abnormality is internal, external or a diagnosed medical condition will play a significant role in which defence can be used. As defences, they are all used for a similar reason, and that is to eliminate or reduce liability for criminal offences.
There are two theories that justify punishment: retributivism according to which punishment ensures that justice is done, and utilitarianism which justifies punishment because it prevents further harm being done. The essence of defences is that those who do not freely choose to commit an offence should not be punished, especially in those cases where the defendant's actions are involuntary. All three of these defences concern mental abnormalities. Diminished responsibility is a partial statutory defence and a partial excuse. Insanity and automatism are excuses and defences of failure of proof. While automatism and diminished responsibility can only be raised by the defendant, insanity can be raised by the defence or the prosecution. It can be raised by the prosecution when the defendant pleads diminished responsibility or automatism. The defendant may also appeal against the insanity verdict. With insanity and diminished responsibility, the burden of proof is on the defendant. With automatism the burden of proof is on the prosecution and they must negate an automatism claim beyond reasonable doubt.