Mental Illness and Criminal Behavior

Regardless of what you might see on TV the verdict of “not guilty by the reason of insanity” is an immensely rare plea for anyone. A majority of offenders with a mental illness still end up incarcerated. Even though the United States only makes up 5% of the world's population we account for 25% of the world's prisoners. Which converts to 2.2 million prisoners and about 1.2 million of those people have a mental illness (Fellner). Mental illness within our jails and prisons has become very prevalent within our correctional systems over the last 10 years. The number of men and women who have a mental illness that end up in jail or prison grows day by day. For those who do not go into the prison with a mental illness, will very likely develop some form of mental illness after being released from incarceration. The mentally ill do not belong in prison, the purpose for incarceration is retribution, incapacitation, deterrence and rehabilitation, and though it is originally meant for all of these purposes, it has lost its meaning. Correctional facilities are not built to provide treatment for the mentally ill, and the people who have been diagnosed with a mental illness cannot get the long-term treatment they need inside of a prison cell.

The insanity defense has been quite a controversial subject. It has been used by some of the most baleful criminals in history. Its controversy derives from the belief that people who plead insanity are excused from the fault of their crimes. Surprisingly however, this defense is rarely used because of how hard it is to prove legal insanity. Less than one percent of criminals choose to plead insanity and of those who choose to plead insanity the success is quite low at 25 percent.( Rolf. p. 2) This defense has been around for centuries. It can be dated back to the 14th century. Kings were willing to pardon crimes to those who were deemed “mad”. By the 18th century the “ wild beast” test was developed by some English courts. However, the

2. This criticism is on the moral basis and the consequences. This section suggests that the crime is of more importance, then the moral imperatives. It also addresses the way a criminal, who does plea insanity, should be trialed and punished for the crime. It is suggested, that the criminal should be convicted and the mental illness should be taken in consideration at the time of sentencing. If this method would be used by the court, it would allow the judge to determine the length of imprisonment, within a hospital prison, and the defendant would have to provide prove of improvement to the once dangerous behavior. Retrieved from; West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2 (2008).

Each year defendants claim to be mentally insane so they may receive medical treatment for their illness instead of serving jail or prison time. It is my belief that all mentally ill citizens should have the right to be medically treated. Although, not all of these people should be allowed back into society after they have reached their sanity. Some extreme cases such as the case of John Wayne Gacy who was proven insane should still never be let back onto the public streets. John Wayne Gacy murdered and raped 33 young men from the Chicago area then plead and Gacy was found insane. Thankfully Gacy’s insanity was ignored and he was sentenced to death. Some cases of insanity should be sentenced properly with treatment after being proven insane by a psychiatric team, but extreme cases should still be treated the same as any sane person.

Throughout the years, the United States criminal justice system has been constantly incarcerating individuals who endure from a severe mental illness. People who suffer from serious mental illness are doubtlessly to be discovered in prison. There is a significant amount of mentally ill offenders that are placed in the state and federal institutions. The mentally ill are overpopulating the prisons. The criminal justice system is a deficiency for those who can profit more from the help of mental health treatment center or psychiatric hospital by sending individuals to correctional facilities or prisons. Today’s jails and prisons are being labeled as the new mental health hospitals for the mentally ill offenders. Commonly in today’s society, it generally takes other individuals who are willing to educate and support the mentally ill person into becoming successful in life.

The Clinical specificity hypothesis states that “psycho-pathological profiles determine different types of psychosocial functioning and lead to particular interactions with the social environment, especially with health care services use” (Côté G, Lesage A, Chawky N, et al., 1997, as sited in Dumais, Côté, and Lesage, 2010, p. 173). The legal status of and individual and whether they end up in a correctional facility or health care facility will determine what type of treatment they will receive. This reasoning can directly relate to individuals who suffer from mental illness and their interactions to the criminal justice system.

The Insanity Defense is used in criminal cases in which the defendant argues that due to their mental state, such as uncontrollable behavior during the time of the crime, they should not be sentenced, and instead should receive medical treatment.  Additionally, if the  defendant does not have the mental competency to understand the wrongfulness of the crime because of their mental illness, they should not be charged. If the defense is successful, in lieu of detainment, the defendant is sent to a secure psychiatric facility to receive treatment until deemed “sane” (Gerber 2-4.) The Insanity Defense protects the inalienable right of being of being tried fairly under the law. However, the defense faces great opposition. There are critics who call

yourself to their level in order to empathise. Its all about trust, once you gain their trust you can go a long way with that person.”

The insanity defense “is traditionally classified as an excuse defense, in contrast with justification defenses like self-defense. This classification indicates

The ideological concept of an insanity defense, formerly termed “complete madness,” was originally incorporated into the English common-law jurisprudence system in the late thirteenth century of the United Kingdom as an affirmative defense for defendants under the yoke of criminal charges involving a heinous action which could involve the option of termination of a defendant’s life if adjudge guilty of such act (Hill). Through such incorporation of a legal defense, the institution of a new societal grouping known commonly as the “criminally insane” became expounded, as well as, the legal opportunity allowing for self-declaration of being “innocent by reason of mental illness or defect”(or, the insanity defense). Those criminally insane are a subset of the prison population who have been deemed to have committed their crimes under the influence of a mental disease/disorder, or who were not in a condition of intellect during the time of the crime to comprehend the illegality or immorality of their offense (Frontline). Only if the defendant has plead insanity before the court can they be considered a truly criminally insane inmate. There are manifold condemnations sustained by the judicial system ranging from guilty but insane to not guilty by reason of insanity, as well as the legal states of incompetency and diminished capacity. This distinction has become a substance of federal law, but as soon as a defendant is convicted, the treatment of the convicted individual is left

Here once again we see the fact that mental illnesses are being blatantly ignored and clearly mental ill patients are being convicted without the proper due process because appeals and motions are being rejected because the legal system doesn’t match with the psychological stand points of mental illness

While there are valid arguments for the insanity plea, the negative consequences outweigh any positive potential. Science, research, and court court cases prove that every individual should be held responsible for his or her actions despite one’s mental state. People always commit crimes for a purpose and a reason whether intended or unintended, known or unknown. Every single individual who has ever committed a crime has had a motive for his or her actions. There is always a driving force or emotion that pushes someone to act or react in a certain way. Right and wrong is basic human knowledge. If an individual has the ability to kill, to rape, or to beat another human being, then they have the ability to know their actions and know how those actions affect others. Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer made this observation regarding the insanity plea: “It is absurd to permit the heinousness of a crime to become self-acquitting. That sets up a perverse standard: the more terrible the crime, the crazier, therefore the less culpable the criminal. The man who commits incomprehensible torture is acquitted. The father who steals bread to feed his children is convicted” (qtd. in “So Guilty They’re Innocent”). Furthermore, if someone has the ability to kill, to rape, or to beat, then they have the ability to be incarcerated and held responsible for their

A significant and controversial issue within the legal system is the ‘insanity defense’ in which during a criminal trial, the defendant will make a claim that they are not guilty by reason of insanity, or in other words, they have deficient and impaired cognitive and mental capabilities. These mental health problems associated with insanity are caused by psychopathological disorders, which may have led to their dysfunction. What separates this from a regular plead of ‘diminished capacity’ is that a plea of insanity is a full defense rather than just a partial defense (Legal information institute, n.d.). With the diminished capacity defense, the defendant’s mental competence is still the focus, although they are pleading to a lesser crime

Mental illness and deviance fit together like a puzzle. Many times if someone commits a crime or does something so insanely crazy, people are quick to say “Well, they were mentally ill”. Although, that is not always the case, a lot of the time it is. If someone is an excessive drinker, people will label them mentally ill. They obviously must have something wrong with them if they just drink all the time. If someone commits a murder, they will be labeled mentally ill. If someone does drugs, robs a store, commits suicide, and so many more things – they will automatically be labeled as someone who is mentally ill. People will plead insanity so that they don’t get the death penalty in prison. Pretty much every time, if someone

In recent years, there has been a higher prevalence of articles in the media in relation to mental illness and crime. This is due to a higher focus of research in the past half-century by criminal psychologists into the relationship between mental illness and violence. A conclusion has then come of this research that people with mental health problems are at increased risk of violent offending. This is determined through classification and misclassification of mental illness and clinical aspects of violence. However, there are also seen to be additional factors and trends that impact a person with mental illness’s likelihood of becoming a violent offender.