Mental issues does not increase the levels of violence
Most people argue that those with mental illness commit crime at a high propensity and are more dangerous than the general public and this perception can be a result of the media as discussed previously. Diminished responsibility can be used in court as a defence where the defendants can argue that they should not held criminally liable for their offence as their mental function was impaired and a result the mens rea was not present. If successful this consequently leads from a murder charge to manslaughter. There are many criticisms with this defence as the general public may feel that the individual has got away with their crime and responsibility needs to be taken. Thomas Szasz’s shares
…show more content…
However looking at statistics on the number of perpetrators convicted of manslaughter using diminished responsibility the results are from 2007 only 39 people were successful in pleading this defence, in 2008 27 people, in 2009 29 people, in 2010 22 people, in 2011 and 2012 the figure stayed the same at 24 people and lastly in 2013 there were 28 people. Looking at this evidence it is apparent that these numbers are very small compared to the general population of the UK. This illustrates that it is not as easy to plead with this defence as there are measures put in place to ensure people are not getting away with crime. Looking at statistics from 2003-2013 on the risk assessment in patient homicides with severe mental illness and a history of violence it is apparent that those with previous violence had 102 cases and those people with no previous violence there were 158 cases. Furthermore there were six percent high risk cases for those who had committed previous violence there were nine percent for those who had had no previous violence. This demonstrates that the results of those with a background of severe mental illness are very similar to those who have no history of mental illness indicating that those who are mentally ill do not commit crime at a high propensity as the
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.
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...
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 defense of diminished capacity, also called diminished responsibility, is available in some jurisdictions. It is based upon claims that a defendant’s mental condition at the time of the crime, although not sufficient to support the affirmative defense of insanity, might still lower criminal culpability. A finding of diminished capacity may result in a verdict of "guilty" to lessened charges.
... the chemicals in their brain are being manipulated from the illness. Since the chemicals in their brain are being constantly manipulated, they are never in their right mind. People who are not mentally stable are unable to make the correct decisions because of the chemical imbalance in their brain; this is why guns need to stay out of the hands of the mentally ill. The government needs to take the initiative and put into law that when a person is trying to acquire a gun, the applicant needs to go through a criminal background check and a medical background check as well. People with mental illnesses should not have possession of guns because there is an increased risk of violence, people with mental illnesses are not mentally stable, and the United States Government does not do the correct screening and background checks that are needed in order to own a gun.
Law Commission, 'Criminal Liability: Insanity and Automatism', (Discussion Paper) para 1.61, citing/referring to; N Sartorius, “Stigma of Mental Illness: A Global View” in L B Cottler (ed), 'Mental Health in Public Health: the Next 100 Years' (2011) p 213-222 & H Schulze, 'Reducing the Stigma of Mental Illness: A Report from a Global Programme of the World Psychiatric Association' (2005)
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.
Seltzer, T., 2005, ‘Mental health courts – A misguided attempt to address the criminal justice system’s unfair treatment of people with mental illnesses’, Psychology, Public Policy and Law, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 570-586.
An ongoing and growing controversy is that of the increasing number of mentally ill offenders incarcerated and released into the community. For the most part, these individuals tend to be among the main contributors of the most violent offenses. While some believe it is best to lock such individuals so that they do not commit any more crimes. Others believe that they too have rights and should also be eligible for early release prison. A common belief is that with mentally ill offenders put away, crime will reduce immensely. Although that may be the case, it is best to treat a mentally ill offender the same as that of an average offender, meaning that the prosecution and judicial process of such individuals must not differ from that of any
It is evident that those with mental illnesses have an increased likelihood of committing crimes. It is important to note, however, that not all people with mental illnesses commit crimes or violent behavior so a cause is not evident. Substance abuse, a mental disorder, is also seen as a large risk in violent behavior (Silver 2006). Hiday (1995) asks the questions of the direction of this correlation. Does mental illness lead to violence or is it vice versa?
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.
ignores the subjective nature of social problems." [2] This becomes apparent when one realizes that not all harmful conditions are considered to be social problems, such as the nutritional concerns of a high fat diet. Another flaw in considering social problems to be the result of objective conditions of harm is that "the objective conditions that people define as social problems have relatively little in common." [3] A list of social problems will have a great
Sociology and psychology is the study of the mind and the environment around us which makes us who we are. These theories assist us to understand behaviour from individual and societal levels.
It is apparent that insanity, automatism and diminished responsibility share similarities and differences in their range of application and in definition. Insanity and automatism are most similar in that they both are full defences (with different outcomes) which exist when a defendant does not have the necessary actus reus or mens rea, whereas diminished responsibility is a partial defence which only applies to murder. The source of the defendant’s mental abnormality is the greatest point of distinction between all of the defences. 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.