The Myth Of Mental Illness Thomas Szasz Summary

In the case of a patient who is mentally ill, rule utilitarianism best describe why hospitalizing the patient against his or her will should be allowed. Before admitting the patient, he or she must meet a set of criteria that the state created. For California, some criteria include refusal of receiving treatment when advised by the doctor, ideations of harming self or others and being mentally incompetent (Involuntary). Through observations from personal clinical experiences, many patients who were admitted fitted these criteria as some are harm risk, while others were mentally incompetent.

The premises of Thomas Szasz’s book are that ‘mental illness’’ are a myth. He argues mental illness should not be classified as psychological problems as they arise from categorical error. He claims the concept of illness

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).

Sense or nonsense, many different views can come from reading the Szasz article on mental illness. According to Szasz mental illness is “merely a convenient myth” (91, Szasz). In the article Szasz compares what it looks to have physical illness compared to mental illness, as well as the concept of what mental illness really consists of. By comparing physical and mental illnesses Szasz makes it evident to the readers that there are clearly more symptoms visible to the eye with physical illnesses, then there are with mental illnesses. Szasz explains that he does not believe in such concepts as mental illness, but he agrees that some factors of mental illness are evident in people’s everyday life. Szasz has some valid points and arguments in his article but overall, there is more to mental illness then just was Szasz sees.

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

Mental illness is a condition characterized by emotions, thoughts, or behavior that are substantially abnormal for a given time and place in history (p. 514). Historically, it has been broadly been defined by self-harm, unrealistic thoughts and perceptions (delusions, hallucinations, magical thinking, etc.), inappropriate emotions, and rapid shifts in moods or beliefs. All these criteria compare the

Over the years the abuse of insanity plea, has troubled our American Justice System in our world today. The growth in this defense has increased so much that the expansion has asked the question; whether or not insanity plea is a worthy and justified defense to be used in the courts. The Insanity defense is when a criminal defendant can be found to have been legally insane when that defendant committed the crime they did at the time. In some cases, the criminal defendant pleads insane and gets a less severe punishment due to their ruling of having a mental impairment. In the court system, the trial procedure for pleading insane is straight forward with its steps and rulings whether or not the criminal is guilty or not.

This paper is going to explain the research that I have done on the insanity defense in general, my own opinion on the use of pleading insanity, a recent case on the successful pleading of insanity to prevent a defendant from being criminally responsible, and the positives and negatives of the insanity defense. I am also going to do my best to explain what should happen to a criminal defendant after they are declared by the courts to be insane, as well citing all of my research.

Have you ever wondered what they did on multiple occasions with psychotic criminals up for sentencing in a court proceeding? In this paper it will clarify that answer, and much more in the final say in mentally ill individuals. The final decision in being mentally ill in a court proceeding is formally known as the Insanity defense plea. The Insanity defense plea is an act of protection for criminals who are not aware of their criminal conduct in sentencing from a judge. In this paper it will begin by explaining the history of the Insanity plea, and how it came about in today’s society of criminals. Next, the paper will educate readers on the process a mentally ill person goes through in order to be protected within this defense.

Despite its depiction in popular culture, insanity is not an easy option in criminal cases. It is a huge gamble: It requires admitting to the underlying crime, and then proving additional facts excusing that crime.

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 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 most

In this study, the author investigates the controversial debate of whether the insanity plea is a legitimate defense or just an easy ploy people use as an excuse to commit crimes. The author’s discussion rest on four major tests used in determining legal insanity: 1) The M'Naghten Rule 2) The "Irresistible Impulse 3) The Durham Rule and 4) The Model Penal Code. The author also uses court cases that expose the pros and cons of each insanity rule. What the author finds is that, to be held criminally responsible, two essential elements have to be proven, beyond reasonable doubt, (a) the person committed the act (actus reus) (b) in doing so, the person acted with his or her own free will, intentionally and for rational reasons (mens rea). According

In the United States, one of the defenses available to criminal defendants in most states is not guilty by reason of insanity. The availability of that defense is subject to state law, ever since a 1994 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court upholding the decision of individual states to abolish that defense (Martin, 1998; Schmalleger, 2009, p. 146). In principle, there is a logical or fundamental ethical basis for the philosophy of allowing those defendants who are insane to escape the same kind (or degree) of punishment normally imposed on individuals whose guilt is established after adjudication in criminal court. The underlying concept is simply that a person who is incapable of understanding why his actions are wrong cannot (or should not) be punished for those actions the same way that a person who fully understands why his actions are wrong deserves to be punished. For the same reason, children are not prosecuted for acts that would be considered criminal if committed by an adult, precisely because children are incapable of appreciating the wrongfulness of their actions (Freidman, 2005, p. 450).

Szasz believes that mental illness is a myth and that it is not a genuine illness because it is based on deviations of the moral/social sort, as opposed to bodily deviations. He proposed an argument that is very effective because it relies, heavily, on familiar intuition. This argument is known as the Argument from Causality.

The insanity defense is a hot topic in today’s crime dramas. Ask a television-saturated college student how often they believe this defense is used in court and they estimate that it is employed about one-third of the time (Lilienfeld 8). In reality, this defense is only used rarely, with a successful attempt being even rarer. Even as a cultural sensitivity to mental illness is cultivated in schools and workplaces, the court remains a skeptical harbinger of judgement to the mentally ill, more often handing down punishment when treatment is needed than excusing a guilty man of his crime. Controversy surrounding the morality of the insanity defense is heavy, posing significant questions that can shape the future relationship between insanity and the justice system in the United States. [CLARIFY THESIS]