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
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
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
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.
...ng experts to identify mental health symptoms such as delusions, hallucinations, and identifying if any instances of malingering are present. Evaluating a defendant is essential in understanding whether or not they are capable of following legal proceedings. If an individual is in fact found incompetent, attempts to restore competency are performed through treatments with medication or mental training about legal information that is vital for them to know in their case. It is imperative to acknowledge competency to stand trial cases in the legal system to not only ensure fairness in the courtroom, but offer mentally ill defendants an opportunity to have a lawful trial depending on their psychological state.
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.
Lamb, H. R. (2004). Mentally ill persons in the criminal justice system: Some perspectives. Psychiatric Quarterly, 108-126.
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
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
If offenders are not attending or following the programs it could lead to unwanted activities
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.
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 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.
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
A defence in criminal law arises when conditions exist to negate specific elements of the crime: the actus reus when actions are involuntary, the mens rea when the defendant is unaware of the significance of their conduct, or both. These defences will mitigate or eliminate liability for a criminal offence. Insanity, automatism and diminished responsibility are examples of such defenses. They each share characteristics but can be distinguished in their scope and application. Insanity, automatism and diminished responsibility all play a significant role in cases where the defendant’s mind is abnormal while committing a crime.