The article entitled Mental disorder and criminal law written by Stephen J. Morse brings some very interesting points to the readers attention. Throughout the article, the author reinforces that while people with mental disabilities should receive special treatment in certain situations, there are other points in which they should receive the same treatment as all other criminals. Morse brings into question how someone can be considered as having a mental disability that caused them to commit a crime. There is no clear cut definition, and sometimes the laws are stretched to accommodate people that may not truly fall into the category of having a mental disability. Mental disorders and criminal law helps the reader to have a better understanding of the judicial process when the defendant is believed to have a mental disability.
Morse begins the article by going over the various definitions for what is considered a mental disorder. He makes it very clear that the American Psychiatric Association’s definition is very open ended, leaving a great deal of room for people to stretch it in order to best fit their needs. According to Morse, “there is enormous heterogeneity within each disorder category. (4) That is, people who technically meet the criteria for the diagnosis may have quite different presentations. This is not surprising because it is also true of physical diseases” (Morse, Stephen J., Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, p.885, 2011). By this Morse means that not everyone with a mental disability will exhibit the same symptoms. Having such a broad definition can be both a curse and a blessing for the judicial system as it allows those who need to be protected by it to use it as an aid but, unfortunately, it also allows people to abuse it.
In the next section of the article, Morse discusses the different criteria that are put forth in order to declare someone unfit to stand trial. He explains that there are many different tests
that cna be done but that not all professionals will agree on the results. Morse stands firm that people are better judges of character than tests and that if a person is truly irrational in their thoughts, no test should be needed to confirm. At the end of this section, Morse explains that simply having a mental disorder does not mean anything legally. A lawyer must be able to prove that their client is unable to truly understand their behavior and the charges being brought against them in order to be considered unfit for trial.
In the book Crazy in America by Mary Beth Pfeiffer, she illustrated examples of what people with mental illness endure every day in their encounters with the criminal justice system. Shayne Eggen, Peter Nadir, Alan Houseman and Joseph Maldonado are amongst those thousands or more people who are view as suspected when in reality they are psychotic who should be receiving medical assistance instead, of been thrown into prison. Their stories also show how our society has failed to provide some of its most vulnerable citizens and has allowed them to be treated as a criminals. All of these people shared a common similarity which is their experience they went through due to their illness.
A court system must observe and consider certain issues when a person stands trial in a court of law. Some of these issues involve competency, sanity and diminished capacity among other issues. These issues influence the decision of the court regarding the offence that the accused faces. For a court of law to make its decision, it has to ensure that the accused is in an acceptable state of health condition. There are certain standards that the court uses to determine competency level of the accused.
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.
There are multiple criteria that come into play when determining a psychological disorder. One reason is because, it is hard to know for sure if an action is abnormal or not. Something could be abnormal in our country, but a custom in another.
Lamb, H. Richard., Weinberger, Linda E., & Gross, Bruce H. (2004). Mentally ill persons in the criminal justice system: Some Perspectives. Psychiatric Quarterly 75(2): 107-126.
Much of my skepticism over the insanity defense is how this act of crime has been shifted from a medical condition to coming under legal governance. The word "insane" is now a legal term. A nuerological illness described by doctors and psychiatrists to a jury may explain a person's reason and behavior. It however seldom excuses it. The most widely known rule in...
Lamb, H. R. (2004). Mentally ill persons in the criminal justice system: Some perspectives. Psychiatric Quarterly, 108-126.
The insanity defense presents many difficult questions for the legal system. It attracts attention beyond its practical significance (it is seldom used successfully) because it goes to the heart of the concept of legal responsibility. ‘‘Not guilty by reason of insanity’’ generally requires that as a result of mental illness the defendant was unable to distinguish right from wrong at the time of the crime. The many difficult and complex questions presented by the insanity defense have led some in the legal community to hope that neuroscience might help resolve some of these problems, but that hope is not likely to be realized. (Smith 475)
The insanity defense pertains that the issue of the concept of insanity which defines the extent to which a person accused of crimes may be alleviated of criminal responsibility by reason of mental disease. “The term insanity routinely attracts widespread public attention that is far out of proportion to the defense’s impact on criminal justice” (Butler,133). The decision of this defense is solely determined by the trial judge and the jury. They determine if a criminal suffers from a mental illness. The final determination of a mental disease is solely on the jury who uses evidence and information drawn from an expert witness. The result of such a determination places the individual accused, either in a mental facility, incarcerated or released from all charges. Due to the aforementioned factors, there are many problems raised by the insanity defense. Some problems would be the actual possibility of determining mental illness, justify the placement of the judged “mentally ill” offenders and the total usefulness of such a defense. In all it is believed that the insanity defense should be an invalid defense and that it is useless and should potentially be completely abolished.
Several states authorize police officers to arrest mentally ill people who have not broken any law. It is argued that this process is a way to promote public order. Hospitals also transfer mentally ill patients to jail in order to deal with the overflow. It is not uncommon for children to be confined to criminal detention centers because there is a lack of facilities for severely mentally ill children. Relying on the criminal justice systems to be surrogate mental health systems conflicts with the basic notions of justice. (Aufderheide,
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 disorders and Criminal Behavior is a chapter that talks about people who live with different medical conditions, and how those mentally
In his proposal “Severe Personality-Disordered Defendants and the Insanity Plea in the United States,” George Palermo, a forensic psychiatrist, presents his thesis for the insanity plea to be reversed back to its previous definition. People who had personality disorders that could cause them to become psychotic for even a brief moment used to be eligible to receive the verdict not guilty by reason of insanity, before the United States restricted it to only people affected by mental illnesses. A mental illness is a disorder such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, which can cause a person to be unable to determine whether an act is right or wrong. It d...
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.
People sometimes have symptoms of mental disorders, but they usually do not meet the criteria or are not clinically significant, severe enough to necessitate treatment. Before a person can be diagnosed with a mental disorder, his or her problematic thoughts, feelings, and actions must meet the criteria for the mental disorder and must prevent adequate social, occupation, or other forms of functioning.