Henry Ford stated, “Coming together is a beginning, keeping together is a progress, working together is success,” Ford’s quote applies to everything and everyone coming together in the beginning to make progress that leads into success, just like we need to do to help the mentally ill. Things need to change so that mentally ill individuals don’t hurt themselves or the people that surround them in society. The law and psychology need to work together to make stricter guidelines to prevent mentally stable people from manipulating the right’s we are giving to mentally ill people, also they need to treat mentally ill before crime happens, and lastly, the mentally ill should not be placed into prisons because of the more severe effects that will hurt them worse in the long run.
Making a tougher mental capacity test would reduce the amount of liars that just rely on the insanity defense to get a lesser sentence. The law has already showed a good beginning in trying to stop perfectly stable people mentally from manipulating the right of the insanity offense the law has given to mentally ill who actually need it,
“About one-fourth of the states have established a separate verdict of ‘Guilty but Mentally Ill’ (GBMI)… The consequence of receiving GBMI is that the individual is convicted and given a criminal sentence. It is a verdict available to the jury when the conclusion is that the defendant committed the act charged but suffers from a mental disorder, however, not at the level necessary to meet the insanity offense,” (Torry 259-260)
the law as a whole has clearly started to make little changes by making the GBMI but they still need to make more progress so people do not manipulate the system. For example, 35-year-old Terry Sturgis...
... middle of paper ...
...uncertainty about life after prison, and inadequate health services” (187), by placing these types of people into prisons is doing nothing but make things worse.
In conclusion the law and psychology need to do a better job working together so we can make the best outcome for everyone. Being mentally ill is not a bad thing, it is just a bad thing when you cannot control your urges: “It is a disorder that impairs the human mind and prevents distinguishing between actions that are right and wrong…They are brain disorders resulting in a diminishined capacity for coping with the demands of life” (Torry 255). By coming together we can make progress and make a success out of making stricter guildlines, treating mentally ill before crime happens, and placing them into institutions, not prisons. This success can be an overall positive thing for the individual and society.
The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world and of that over sixty percent of jail inmates reported having a mental health issue and 316,000 of them are severely mentally ill (Raphael & Stoll, 2013). Correctional facilities in the United States have become the primary mental health institutions today (Adams & Ferrandino, 2008). This imprisonment of the mentally ill in the United States has increased the incarceration rate and has left those individuals medically untreated and emotionally unstable while in jail and after being released. Better housing facilities, medical treatment and psychiatric counseling can be helpful in alleviating their illness as well as upon their release. This paper will explore the increasing incarceration rate of the mentally ill in the jails and prisons of the United States, the lack of medical services available to the mentally ill, the roles of the police, the correctional officers and the community and the revolving door phenomenon (Soderstrom, 2007). It will also review some of the existing and present policies that have been ineffective and present new policies that can be effective with the proper resources and training. The main objective of this paper is to illustrate that the criminalization of the mentally ill has become a public health problem and that our policy should focus more on rehabilitation rather than punishment.
The fight for improved health care for those with mental illness has been an ongoing and important struggle for advocates in the United States who are aware of the difficulties faced by the mentally ill and those who take care of them. People unfortunate enough to be inflicted with the burden of having a severe mental illness experience dramatic changes in their behavior and go through psychotic episodes severe enough to the point where they are a burden to not only themselves but also to people in their society. Mental institutions are equipped to provide specialized treatment and rehabilitative services to severely mentally ill patients, with the help of these institutions the mentally ill are able to get the care needed for them to control their illness and be rehabilitated to the point where they can become a functional part of our society. Deinstitutionalization has led to the closing down and reduction of mental institutions, which means the thousands of patients who relied on these mental institutions have now been thrown out into society on their own without any support system to help them treat their mental illness. Years after the beginning of deinstitutionalization and after observing the numerous effects of deinstitutionalization it has become very obvious as to why our nation needs to be re-institutionalized.
Interest and debate have greatly increased over the Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI) plea since the 1970s. The legal definition of insanity as understood by Dunn, Cowan, and Downs (2006) is, “a person is thought insane if he or she is incapable of knowing or understanding the nature and quality of his or her act of distinguishing right from wrong at the time of the commission of the offense.” There are several investigations needed in the area of NGRIs plea, especially in the area of gender. Research on gender is needed because of its potential to influence the presentation and formation of the rule of law. Throughout many cultures the general assumption is that men are significantly more aggressive than women, whereas women often are characterized by passive and communal traits (Yourstone, 2007 ). Public opinion on insanity cases is often viewed negatively. Furthermore, the public often believe that insanity defendants go free after they are found NGRI. However, according to Dunn et al., (2006), “the NGRI sits at the low end of the ultimate outcome measure, whereas the death penalty sits at the high end.” The public in general view a mentally ill person as dangerous. The main reason for this is the media’s inaccurate perceptions of the mentally ill as violent (Breheney, 2007). Another problem is the public generally overestimates the insanity defense success rate. According to Breheney et al., (2007), “There are nine insanity pleas for every 1,000 felony cases of which 26% (about two) are successful.” However, the argument has been that insanity defenses are used as a means of escaping severe penalties in the most serious of crimes. Several questions arise from this topic in both psychology and law. It is important f...
“Not guilty by reason of insanity” (NGRI) has often perplexed even the most stringent of legal and psychiatric professionals for centuries. Moreover, it has transcended into the pop culture, as a “loophole”for the criminal society. However, the insanity defense is only used in less than 1% of criminal cases, and used successfully in only 10-25% of those cases (Torry and Billick, 2010). In order to successfully be acquitted by reason of insanity, the legal team, paired with psychiatric professionals, must prove that the defendant is not legally responsible for the crime, despite the evidence that they executed the crime. They must also prove that the defendant, was or is currently suffering from a mental disorder, and that the defendant have/had a impaired logical control of their actions (Smith, 2011). According to Torry and Billick (2010), “A criminal act must have two components: evil intent (mens rea, literally “guilt mind”) and action (actus reus, literally “guilty act”)” (p.225), thus the defendant must prove that he/she did not have “mens rea” or “actus reus.” Equally important to note, the act itself must be voluntary and conscious. The the majority of the psychological and judicial court system have a reluctance to hold defendants who lack the capability needed to understand “right from wrong” (Torry and Billick, 2010). It has been proven that over the course of many years, the NGRI have been difficult to apply. During the early 1980’s, many states modernized their NGRI defense and even abolished the defense altogether. Instead of allowing the the “not guilty by reason of insanity” defense, many states have established a verdict of “guilty but mentally ill” (GBMI) (Smith, 2011). In order to make sure that individuals w...
As time goes on, the law has put more emphasis on facility just like Bridgewater State Hospital in which many of the actions of the facility workers can face legal consequences such as facing prison time, fines, lawsuits, and etc. Society has a better understanding of why certain people act the way that they do and being more knowledgeable about psychology and mental diseases allows us to have a different approach when dealing with these topics or these individuals. In today’s era, there are many normal individuals who are willing to stand up for those who do not have a voice of their own. I believe that this change in one’s ability to stand up for another individual or group of individuals is what brought about change to the medical environment of those who are mentally
Mental illness affects one in four adults every year ("NAMI: National Alliance on Mental Illness | Mental Illnesses"). Mental illness effects thousands who may not even be aware of it. Many who are aware do not receive treatment until something bad happens in result of not receiving treatment. These illnesses affect all aspects of the person’s life. They often do things without the knowledge of what they are doing. Many people who do have these illness commit crimes without the knowledge of the fact that they are doing wrong. People often do not believe that having a mental illness gives people the right to commit a crime, and it doesn’t. It merely suggests that the person who committed said crime was not aware of their actions therefore cannot be held accountable for the wrongdoing. Families of the victims usually are oblivious to what mental illness is and own they do end up educating themselves wondering why these people never got help so their loved one may have been spared. Mentally ill persons should be exempt from the death penalty because they are in a questionable state of mind, they will become low risk if they receive treatment, and the families of the victims do not want them to receive the death penalty.
The criminal justice system takes on a pivotal role in pursuing and preventing crimes in society. When a suspect is caught and then faced with charges for a violent crime, they legally have the right to a fair trial. In order for a criminal proceeding to successfully take place, the defendant must be fully aware of their surroundings, have a basic understanding of court procedures, as well as being capable of defending their one case. Competency to stand trial (CST) is essential for maintaining fairness in the courtroom and producing a just verdict. However, if a defendant is unable to understand legal proceedings due to mental illness or impairment, they must be thoroughly assessed and evaluated before declared incompetent to stand trial. Carrying out a case with a defendant who lacks mental capacity causes numerous issues because the individual is incapable of supplying their lawyers with information regarding their crime or any of the witness testimonies at trial. Lack of comprehensible communication between a defendant and attorney forces an ineffective defense in the case. Mental disturbances in the defendant that may cause disorderly conduct in the court room are considered disruptive and weaken the authority of the legal system. Supreme Court cases that have dealt with competency to stand trial issues over the years have made significant rulings, which have stressed the importance of identifying whether or not a defendant is in fact incompetent.
Wouldn’t it be completely irrational to sentence every mentally ill individual to jail purely because they suffered from a mental illness? Often, mentally ill people behave in an eccentric manner and allure the attention of police officers who do not differentiate the mentally ill from mentally stable people and immediately charge them with misdemeanors. There are approximately 300,000 inmates, with the number increasing every year, which suffer from a mental illness and do not receive proper treatment. Jails are not adequately equipped to care for mentally ill inmates, which can lead to an escalation of an inmate’s illness. Society has failed to provide enough social resources for citizens suffering from psychiatric illnesses in its community, transferring mentally unstable individuals between mental institutions and jails, when in fact adequate aid such as providing proper medication, rehabilitation opportunities, and more psychiatric hospitals in communities is a necessity to reconstitute these individuals.
Many people question if people with mental illnesses should be criminally charged. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law says, “In most countries the options of incarceration and hospitalization are available in concert. In some, incarceration occurs before hospitalization. In others, hospitalization is first, followed by a prison term”. There are many different debates that go on. They should decide if a person should be criminally charged depending on the illness and followed by the concept “treatment years”. Treatment years is when the court decided how long the person needs to be in treatment for according to the severity of the crime. From my point of view these people should be criminally charged but depending the severity of the illness they should seek treatment. A person that is mentally ill should be treated like a person that is not mentally ill; equality, public safety, and the well being on the person being charged, should be considered.
Since the mid 1900s, individuals with mental illness have been sent to jail rather than to receive proper treatment. These patients should be able to receive treatment and care because it will be increasing the safety of not only the person themselves but also others surrounding them.
Prior to taking this course, I generally believed that people were rightly in prison due to their actions. Now, I have become aware of the discrepancies and flaws within the Criminal Justice system. One of the biggest discrepancies aside from the imprisonment rate between black and white men, is mental illness. Something I wished we covered more in class. The conversation about mental illness is one that we are just recently beginning to have. For quite a while, mental illness was not something people talked about publicly. This conversation has a shorter history in American prisons. Throughout the semester I have read articles regarding the Criminal Justice system and mental illness in the United States. Below I will attempt to describe how the Criminal Justice system fails when they are encountered by people with mental illnesses.
In the United States, trials in which a defendant pleads not guilty by reason of insanity represent 1% of all the criminal cases, and the defense is lawfully verified in only 25% of these cases (Giannetakis, 2011). The not guilty by reason of insanity plea, or NGRI, is a legal defense a defendant might use to argue that he or she was not guilty of a crime because of insanity (Butcher, Hooley, & Mineka, 2014). The effort to define insanity in a legal sense begins in 1843 and carries on until 1984. Starting with “The M’Naghten Rule” or the “knowing right from wrong” rule because people are presumed to be stable ,but it can be exposed that at the time of the act they were committing, they were struggling under such a flaw of reason (from disease of the mind) that they did not know the nature and quality of the act they were committing or, if they did know they were committing the act, they did not know that what they were doing was wrong (Butcher, et. al, 2014). Secondly there was the Irresistible Impulse Rule in 1887, which suggests that the defendants might not be accountable for their acts, even when they knew that what they were doing was wrong ( according to the M’Naghten rule)- if they had lost the control to choose from right and wrong. That is, they could not dodge doing the act in question because they were compelled beyond their will to commit the act. Moving on to 1954, Judge David Bazelon of the U.S. Court of Appeals, was not confident in the prior precedents permissible for an adequate submission of established scientific knowledge of mental illness ,and recommended a test that would be based on this knowledge. Under this rule, which is often referred to as the “product test” (Durham Rule), the accused is not illegitim...
The issue of executing mentally ill criminals has been widely debated among the public. They debate on whether it is right or wrong to execute a person who does not possess the capacity to think correctly. The mental illness is a disease that destroys a person’s memory, emotion, and prevent one or more function of the mind running properly. The disease affects the way a person thinks, feels, behaves and relates to others.When a person is severely mentally ill, his/ her ability to appreciate reality lack so they aspire to do stuff that is meaningless. The sickness is triggered by an amalgamation of genetic, and environmental factors not a personal imperfection. On the death penalty website, Scott Panetti who killed his mother in-law and father-in-law reports that since 1983, over 60 people with mental illness or retardation have been executed in the United States (Panetti). The American Civil Liberties Union says that it is unconstitutional to execute someone who suffered from an earnest mental illness (ACLU).Some people apply the term crazy or mad to describe a person who suffers from astringent psychological disorders because a mad person look different than a mundane human being. The time has come for us to accept the fact that executing mentally ill offenders is not beneficial to society for many reasons. Although some mentally ill criminals have violated the law, we need to sustain a federal law that mentally ill criminals should not be put to death.
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.
Insanity, automatism and diminished responsibility all play a significant role in cases where the defendant’s mind is abnormal while committing a crime. The definition of abnormal will be reviewed in relationship to each defence. In order to identify how these three defences compare and contrast, it is first important to understand their definition and application. The appropriate defence will be used once the facts of the cases have been distinguished and they meet the legal tests. The legal test of insanity is set out in M’Naghten’s Case: “to establish a defence…of insanity it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.” To be specific, the defect of reason arises when the defendant is incapable of exercising normal reasoning. The defect of reason requires instability in reasoning rather than a failure to exercise it at a time when exercise of reason is possible. In the case of R v Clarke, the defendant was clinically depressed and in a moment of absent-mindedness, stole items from a supermarket...