The Mentally Ill and the Law

[HIC SVNT LEONES]

Now, I've always wondered. Why is it that the mentally sick get treated different for crimes that would put a normal man in prison or have him executed? Why does the illness lessen the crime? I've been thinking about this after reading a few articles on court hearings and watching a few on TV.

[cfmonkey45]

Firstly, you need to understand the goal of the legal process. The US judiciary system is an adversarial system as opposed to an inquisitorial one. An adversarial system requires that another party formally press charges against you, and that the court room is a neutral place to settle disputes. An inquisitorial one is where the "adversary" is the judge, and your crime is against the entity that they represent. Thus, in the American courtroom, the judge is therefore impartial and, based on the evidence, the best and most appropriate punishment--without malice or self-interest--is made.

In the United States, the goal of criminal justice is firstly, prevention, in that by locking them away they can do no more harm (i.e. being reformed), and secondly, reform, or being made to understand and therefore become incapable of recommitting crimes. Criminal insanity is defined as "not knowing the consequences of your actions." Essentially, the person being punished might not be aware that what they did was wrong, or even remember that they did it. Thus, special treatment is required to remove them and rehabilitate them.

[HIC SVNT LEONES]

Hrm. I kind of get that. Still weird for me, I mean I'm not without compassion for the sick here but it just seems sort of silly.

[Boer]

Often, the mentally ill are still locked up for their crimes, just in mental hospitals where they can receive treatment instead of in prison. It is not as if their mental illness is a get out of jail free card (I'm talking here about long-term illness, not simply a "normal" person using temporary insanity), more like a change of jail card. The mentally ill present challenges that the prison system is not equipped to handle.

[humvee2800]

Here in winnipeg some korean decapitated a guy on a bus saying god told him too, he was deemed mentally unfit, went to a mental hospital, and is due to be released after only six months there.

[TheTrainee]

Here in winnipeg some korean decapitated a guy on a bus saying god told him too, he was deemed mentally unfit, went to a mental hospital, and is due to be released after only six months there.

That seems a little lax.

[Ahlerich]

Here in winnipeg some korean decapitated a guy on a bus saying god told him too, he was deemed mentally unfit, went to a mental hospital, and is due to be released after only six months there.

you are in winnipeg? get ou! where in wpg do you live? i lived there for a couple of years. remember the greyhound incident..

on topic: i think law tries to punnish those that commit crimes. ill people are not ore less responsible for their crimes and therefore have to punnished/cured differently. i think thats the thought behind it.

if the greyhound headhunter has been released after 6 months that would be weird as he must still be a threat to society. are you sure they will release him that early?

[the Black Prince]

because a crime is not just about committing the act.

Almost all crimes have two elements, committing the physical act and doing so with the necessary mental culpability (intent, recklessness etc)

With people who are mentally ill, in some cases, their mental illness is so pronounced that they could not understand or follow a trial process, others are legally classified as insane. For a greater number of people with mental illness, it is recognised that they committed the act, but could not have committed the crime because they did not have or are not able to form the necessary mental element of the offence.

To give an example, to commit murder, I must not only cause an injury that kills a person, I must also have intended to kill or cause serious bodily harm. The defence of diminished responsibility means that people who meet a certain definition cannot have committed murder, because they could not have formed such an intent.


In addition, mental illness has an impact on sentencing, it mitigates the crime, because the person is not a fully functioning and reasoning person, but has an illness that affects their capacity. Its also a recognised goal of sentencing to rehabilitate and prevent reoffending, not just to punish. If a person committed an offence because they are ill, the best way to prevent reoffending is to cure them. Imposing a hospital order on someone is in many ways worse than a prison sentence. If you are sent to prison, you will almost always know, to the day, when you will be released. If you are sentenced to a hospital order, you remain in that hospital until the doctor says you are cured, or sufficiently well to be treated in the community. Completely indeterminate, you could spend the rest of your life in the hospital, having committed only a very minor offence, or as the above post shows, commit a serious offence and be released after only a short period of time.

A brief summary then, is that crime is not just about doing wrong, but knowing (or should have known) that you were doing wrong. Many mental illnesses affect people's ability to reason or understand, or affect the way they respond. They may act wrong but do not know or have no way of knowing that what they are doing is wrong or cannot prevent themselves from acting. Any just and fair legal system must take this into account.

[Ciabhán]

because a crime is not just about committing the act.

Almost all crimes have two elements, committing the physical act and doing so with the necessary mental culpability (intent, recklessness etc)

With people who are mentally ill, in some cases, their mental illness is so pronounced that they could not understand or follow a trial process, others are legally classified as insane. For a greater number of people with mental illness, it is recognised that they committed the act, but could not have committed the crime because they did not have or are not able to form the necessary mental element of the offence.

To give an example, to commit murder, I must not only cause an injury that kills a person, I must also have intended to kill or cause serious bodily harm. The defence of diminished responsibility means that people who meet a certain definition cannot have committed murder, because they could not have formed such an intent.


In addition, mental illness has an impact on sentencing, it mitigates the crime, because the person is not a fully functioning and reasoning person, but has an illness that affects their capacity. Its also a recognised goal of sentencing to rehabilitate and prevent reoffending, not just to punish. If a person committed an offence because they are ill, the best way to prevent reoffending is to cure them. Imposing a hospital order on someone is in many ways worse than a prison sentence. If you are sent to prison, you will almost always know, to the day, when you will be released. If you are sentenced to a hospital order, you remain in that hospital until the doctor says you are cured, or sufficiently well to be treated in the community. Completely indeterminate, you could spend the rest of your life in the hospital, having committed only a very minor offence, or as the above post shows, commit a serious offence and be released after only a short period of time.

A brief summary then, is that crime is not just about doing wrong, but knowing (or should have known) that you were doing wrong. Many mental illnesses affect people's ability to reason or understand, or affect the way they respond. They may act wrong but do not know or have no way of knowing that what they are doing is wrong or cannot prevent themselves from acting. Any just and fair legal system must take this into account.

This is all legal . You kill someone you killed em, sick or not you still did it and you are responsible. For the purposes of the law, sure you can get away with it. In reality killing someone is killing either ing way. Technically I'm a borderline sociopath I have very little to no empathy for other folks and couldn't give a if they die or not. That however doesn't give me the right to kill them, although in court it possibly could get me a reduced sentence(being as my 'upbringing led me to this point' etc. and all that other ).

Think about it. Coming from a combat vet you have to be mentally ill either permanently or temporarily to kill another fella anyway. So why do folks get a pass for it if they happen to have extraneous illnesses? I recently responded to a call where a Down's Syndrome lad attacked his little sister with a hammer. Is he any less responsible than the crazy little fella, from a few months before, that thought tossing logs(and almost killing a cabbie)off an overpass was fun? Both have mental problems, one genetic, one likely environmental. Both were found guilty of a crime of equal degree. Why is it one mentally 'defective' lad gets off easier than another?

I am well aware of the legalities involved in it being 'criminal' or not. The reality is that both lads ed someone up well enough and both are equally guilty of offense. You think it mattered to that cabbie if the fella that almost killed him was suffering from some mysterious disorder? If that's the case then all the 'terrorists' I came up with in Belfast are guiltless as they all could be found to have some disorder or another.

[the Black Prince]

This is all legal . You kill someone you killed em, sick or not you still did it and you are responsible. For the purposes of the law, sure you can get away with it. In reality killing someone is killing either ing way. Technically I'm a borderline sociopath I have very little to no empathy for other folks and couldn't give a if they die or not. That however doesn't give me the right to kill them, although in court it possibly could get me a reduced sentence(being as my 'upbringing led me to this point' etc. and all that other ).

Think about it. Coming from a combat vet you have to be mentally ill either permanently or temporarily to kill another fella anyway. So why do folks get a pass for it if they happen to have extraneous illnesses? I recently responded to a call where a Down's Syndrome lad attacked his little sister with a hammer. Is he any less responsible than the crazy little fella, from a few months before, that thought tossing logs(and almost killing a cabbie)off an overpass was fun? Both have mental problems, one genetic, one likely environmental. Both were found guilty of a crime of equal degree. Why is it one mentally 'defective' lad gets off easier than another?

I am well aware of the legalities involved in it being 'criminal' or not. The reality is that both lads ed someone up well enough and both are equally guilty of offense. You think it mattered to that cabbie if the fella that almost killed him was suffering from some mysterious disorder? If that's the case then all the 'terrorists' I came up with in Belfast are guiltless as they all could be found to have some disorder or another.

Simply having a mental disorder doesn't make you guiltless. As I said, sometimes a mental illness may only be a mitigating factor.

Killing someone is not the same as murder. I can run my sword through your body and end your life. That same action can be Murder, Reckless Act Manslaughter, Manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility, Manslaughter by reason of Provocation, no crime at all by reason of Self Defence or no crime at all by reason of insanity.

The nature of the act is defined by circumstance, did I deliberately run you through, or was it a tragic accident, but also by mental culpability, did I intend to run you through, or was it a tragic accident.

In a great many cases, people with mental illness do not "get away" with it, as the penalty they face (especially if found not guilty by reason of insanity) is harsher than if they had been sentenced to imprisonment.

Why is it one mentally defective lad gets off easier than the other, well, it depends on circumstance. I don't know what the psychiatric reports into each defendant said. But at a guess, the Downs Syndrome lad was unable to properly identify the nature and quality of the act he committed and therefore had very limited mental culpability. Ultimately, it is down to the Judge to decide what impact, if any, a defendants mental state had on why he committed the crime.

Many crimes require intention or recklessness as one of the ingredients of the offence. A person with a mental defect may undertake an action and not be aware of the impact the action might have. Such a person clearly has less culpability than a person who commits the same act knowing full well the consequences of their actions.

[Morkonan]

Now, I've always wondered. Why is it that the mentally sick get treated different for crimes that would put a normal man in prison or have him executed? Why does the illness lessen the crime? I've been thinking about this after reading a few articles on court hearings and watching a few on TV.

You're in a room.

There's a guy in there that's about to brutally rape a woman, strangle her and then he's going to chop her up into little bits and feed her remains to a hundred children.

The only way you can stop him is to kill him. There's no other way. You've tried everything you know to prevent it but, an innocent person is going to be brutally tortured and murdered and even more damaging atrocities are going to come about that could effect children for the rest of their lives! Something must be done and you're the only one who can do it! He's right in front of you, there's no time to do anything other than act!

So, you kill him.

Then, a bunch of guys take you away, force some medication into you and you find out that none of what you thought was true was, in fact, true. It was all a terrible hallucination caused by your mental illness. You killed an innocent man because you were insane. Your "reality" simply wasn't real.

Welcome to the gas chamber? I don't think so.

This could actually be a scenario for a mentally ill person. I've seen plenty of them become stabilized on their medication and sincerely and honestly apologize for things they may have done when they were acting out their irrational and insane behaviors. It's common for them to understand and be shocked by their own behavior once they're stabilized. It must be a terribly traumatic experience and I thank the powers that be that I appear to be sane.. mostly.

No, such solutions don't console the families of the victims. But, Law is supposed to dispense social justice, not simply meet out unthinking revenge.

[Ciabhán]

You're in a room.

There's a guy in there that's about to brutally rape a woman, strangle her and then he's going to chop her up into little bits and feed her remains to a hundred children.

The only way you can stop him is to kill him. There's no other way. You've tried everything you know to prevent it but, an innocent person is going to be brutally tortured and murdered and even more damaging atrocities are going to come about that could effect children for the rest of their lives! Something must be done and you're the only one who can do it! He's right in front of you, there's no time to do anything other than act!

So, you kill him.

Then, a bunch of guys take you away, force some medication into you and you find out that none of what you thought was true was, in fact, true. It was all a terrible hallucination caused by your mental illness. You killed an innocent man because you were insane. Your "reality" simply wasn't real.

Welcome to the gas chamber? I don't think so.

This could actually be a scenario for a mentally ill person. I've seen plenty of them become stabilized on their medication and sincerely and honestly apologize for things they may have done when they were acting out their irrational and insane behaviors. It's common for them to understand and be shocked by their own behavior once they're stabilized. It must be a terribly traumatic experience and I thank the powers that be that I appear to be sane.. mostly.

No, such solutions don't console the families of the victims. But, Law is supposed to dispense social justice, not simply meet out unthinking revenge.

Given the scenario above if the victim was kith or kin and the killer was either found innocent or released sometime during my natural life I'd kill the bastard myself. I would find him, tie his arse up, and spend a week or so skinning him alive. When the peelers came for me and it was time to make a plea, I could just claim insanity myself. No matter the reason criminal acts are criminal acts.

Intentions be they good or ill do not justify the end.

[Morkonan]

...Intentions be they good or ill do not justify the end.

The point is that the patient's "intentions" weren't even available for the patient to access. Your need for revenge has no bearing on whether or not it, in itself, is just. What you may want to do is not always the just and morally right thing to do.

[Ciabhán]

The point is that the patient's "intentions" weren't even available for the patient to access. Your need for revenge has no bearing on whether or not it, in itself, is just. What you may want to do is not always the just and morally right thing to do.

I'm a borderline sociopath(moral insanity)so my intentions are null and void, yet the fact that I am capable of choosing my course, intentions notwithstanding, would put me in prison...

Why is it one mentally defective lad gets off easier than the other, well, it depends on circumstance. I don't know what the psychiatric reports into each defendant said. But at a guess, the Downs Syndrome lad was unable to properly identify the nature and quality of the act he committed and therefore had very limited mental culpability. Ultimately, it is down to the Judge to decide what impact, if any, a defendants mental state had on why he committed the crime.

Still all legal speak. Killing someone outside of self defense/defense of others(real self defense not some imagined version due to ones insanity)or war is criminal. Being mentally defective is not absolution for it.

[SturmChurro]

The mentally ill are "craxy" so to speak, in their minds and uncapable of self resistence from doing crimes, excuse my speech.

[boofhead]

Now, I've always wondered. Why is it that the mentally sick get treated different for crimes that would put a normal man in prison or have him executed? Why does the illness lessen the crime? I've been thinking about this after reading a few articles on court hearings and watching a few on TV.

It shouldn't.

[★Bandiera Rossa☭]

I believe it is at times a valid defense... although it leaves questions as to what constitutes mental illness.. Schizophrenia..OCD...Racism.. were does it stop?

[the Black Prince]

*sighs* of course its legal speak, we're talking abou a legal issue...

this isn't about killing, or about punching someone, its about murder and assault.

Why do mentally ill people get treated differently? because by virtue of their illness, they have not committed the same criminal offence as other people.

Killing may just be an act, but murder requires a certain mental state. If your illness prevents you from forming that state, you can't possibly have murdered someone. If the prosecutor pursues murder in the face of that evidence and loses, then the defendant will walk free.

[the_mango55]

I think insane and mentally ill people need longer sentences than criminals.

I mean, if you are just a criminal you can be reformed. If you killed someone because you have a mental illness, there's a good chance it will happen again when you get out.

[Visna]

I think insane and mentally ill people need longer sentences than criminals.

I mean, if you are just a criminal you can be reformed. If you killed someone because you have a mental illness, there's a good chance it will happen again when you get out.

Don't know how the legal system functions in your neck o' the woods, but around these parts an insane criminal can be detained indefinetely. They get an evaluation, errr not sure how often, I can look it up if you're interested, and if they're still considered a danger to themselves or others they're not getting out.