The Shortcomings Of The Diagnostic And Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders ( Dsm )

Throughout the course of history, society has tried to explain and diagnose the abnormal behavior of individuals with mental illnesses. Originally, folklore and other concepts dating back to ancient times, influenced societies to define and label those individuals that expressed abnormal patterns of behavior as mad, insane and mentally ill (Henderson, 2009). Treatment and legal proceedings for such individuals often incorporated cruel and unusual punishments and in some cases even death. Over time, societal views on the available treatments and legal proceedings for the mentally ill have changed drastically. Legal defense for those with mental illnesses, known as the insanity defense became available as far back as King Henry III’s reign over England (Ahia, 2009). The insanity defense is often used interchangeably with: the insanity plea as well as the phrase “not guilty” by reason of insanity. The accepted use of the insanity plea by the defendant, an individual whom is accused of a crime, is determined by the mental health evaluations of the court’s legal standards and or by mental health professionals. The issue of mental illness and the insanity defense becomes controversial when those with mental illnesses commit heinous crimes and use the “not guilty” by reason of insanity defense. The public fears that the individuals are using a questionable and concerning defense to be pardoned for committing violent crimes and that those individuals who are found not guilty and

Mental Illness has been prevalent all throughout our history from Isaac Newton to Abraham Lincoln to Sylvia Plath and so on. These illnesses can be as minor as a slight bipolar disorder or as severe as schizophrenia. In recent years, mental illnesses are becoming more prevalent in our criminal justice systems than anywhere else. Mental illness is becoming an association with crime and based on the information that has been found, this paper will attempt to further define the problem of mental illness within our criminal justice system and offer alternatives or insights as to how to possibly help with this problem.

Antwone Fisher is a character who is very hostile and antisocial. He feels alone and confused by previous events that occurred during his childhood. Fisher is very withdrawn, unforgiving, and apprehensive. The constant battle of flashbacks denoting verbal, physical, and sexual abuse frequently interferes with his everyday life. The diagnostic criteria for post traumatic stress disorder explain the details of Antwone’s life in its entirety. Antwone meets the following criteria in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition: “Directly experiences a traumatic event, experiences extreme exposure to aversive details of the traumatic event, recurrent, involuntary distressive memories” (271).

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is currently the most frequently used way of standardizing and defining psychological disorders. However, the classification systems such as DSM have advantages and disadvantages. The major weakness of DSM is that it judges symptoms superficially and ignores other possible important factors. The major strength of DSM is that it enables categorization of psychological disorders.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) has a number of features. First of all, every disorder is identified using a name and a numerical code. In addition, the manual provides the criteria for diagnosing each disorder as well as establishes subtypes of a disorder and examples that would illustrate the disorder. The manual goes further by addressing the typical age of onset, culturally related information, gender-related information, prevalence of a disorder, typical clinical course of a disorder, typical predisposing factors of a disorder and genetic family patterns of a disease (Summers, 2009). The DSM-IV is a tool that is used by mental health practitioners and social service workers. As has been demonstrated

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).

The insanity defense has become popularized by criminal television shows, but it is not used as portrayed. According to Dr. Zachary Torry, a psychiatrist, the defense is actually used in one percent of cases and not even one-fourth of those cases will succeed in front of a jury (Torry). Furthermore, the legal definition of insanity is very different than the societal definition. As stated by George Blau, a criminal defense lawyer, “insane” does not describe someone who is psychotic or crazy, but it instead describes someone who does not know the difference between right or wrong. They are found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) because one of the three traits of a crime is not evident. The three traits are a guilty mind (mens rea), a prohibited act, and a pre-established sentence (Blau). For the insane, there is no mens rea because someone cannot feel guilty for an act that they do not know is wrong. Therefore, those found NGRI have a different punishment than those convicted of a crime. Their sentence is often time at a mental institution where treatment is available, but the sentences can be irregular and unchecked by government associations. Therefore, the insanity defense may need to be amended, by requiring monitoring of the cases and adopting the mens rea approach or to be completely abolished because of its potential improper use and a lack of proof.

Many cases require alternate defences for those who suffer from mental disorders, this defence is known as Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder also known as NCRMD. A defence such as this is used to explain that the perpetrator had a disorder that made them unaware of the crime they had committed and that the crime was wrong. Applying NCRMD as a defence can be difficult as there are many requirements a person needs to meet before they are deemed not responsible. In some cases, it is hard to prove that the offender had a mental disorder at the time of the crime and that it is a valid defence as to why they committed the crime unknowingly. There is a lot of discussion around NCRMD being successful or unsuccessful and what should happen to the offender if they are deemed NCRMD. A recent case where NCRMD was used as a defence and was successful, was in the case of David Siu. NCRMD is a successful and valid defence if it is used in the right case to protect those in the system with mental disoders.

It has long been acknowledged that an offender who as a result to mental disorder, is incapable of understanding the nature and quality of a criminal act, or of recognizing that it was wrong, should not be convicted. Bill C-54 the Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act deals with the accused who has been found Criminally Responsible because of mental disorder. Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) is defined in Section 16 of the Canadian Criminal Code, stating that if someone is deemed NCR he or she cannot be held accountable for the offence they’ve committed, merely if at that time they were suffering through a mental disorder. The Bill will enact three main factors which will affect the mental disorder regime

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.

The insanity defense, otherwise called the mental disorder defense, is a barrier by reason in a criminal case, contending that the litigant is not in charge of their activities due to a verbose or tenacious psychiatric infection at the time of the criminal demonstration. Competency figures out if a respondent will have the capacity to show up at trial and comprehend the procedures; sanity determines figures out if a litigant will be considered in charge of his criminal activities. Accordingly, a respondent who is skillful to stand trial may in any case be found not blameworthy by reason of

Society frequently puts protections in place for those that are seen as vulnerable. These protections tend to cover those who are unable to defend themselves or fully understand what is happening around them. One of these protections is the ability to use a mental illness, defect or disability as a legal defense referred to as an Insanity Defense. The introduction of this practice came in 1844, when the defense for Daniel M’Naghten of Glasgow, Scotland was able to get him a Not Guilty verdict in a murder case. The case asserted that because of Daniel M’Naghtens altered mental state, where he experienced extreme paranoia and delusions; he was unable to make a conscious decision to do wrong or right according to the law. (Schmalleger, 128)

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

Roy Blunt, American politician, once said, “People with mental health problems are almost never dangerous. In fact, they are more likely to be the victims than the perpetrators. At the same time, mental illness has been the common denominator in one act of mass violence after another.” There is a misconception that mental disorders such as dissociative identity disorder and schizophrenia are the same. Today’s society often see all mental disorders as one, however, they are very much different. If one was to say someone with multiple personalities is the same as someone who has hallucinations and/or has delusions, they are incorrect, which is why in specific cases such as schizophrenia, the legal term “not guilty due to mental disorder” should be valid.