Post by lilyzhuo on May 9, 2016 17:36:02 GMT
In a particular TEDx talk on mental health and criminal justice, the speaker mentioned how 40% of contact between those with mental disorders and the police was for non-criminal behavior (in Canada at least). Many, however, are arrested for criminal behaviors, though they are often for minor violations (theft, public disturbance, vandalism, etc.). Though some will be sent to forensic psychiatric facilities to receive care, many are found criminally responsible and face sentencing by the courts. However, mental illness is not a predictor of violence, as those with mental illnesses are much more likely to be victims of violence than to cause it.
So why are so many found criminally responsible, especially for such minor offenses that may go unnoticed had someone not reported a public disturbance? Perhaps, as the speaker said, many inaccurately link those with mental illnesses to violence, and thus rush to have police intervene. The United States does allow for the insanity/mental disorder defense, whereby someone can be held not responsible for their criminal actions because of a persistent mental disorder. However, mental health professionals are only allowed to testify, and ultimately the jury decides how criminally liable someone is. Thus, the insanity defense is hardly ever used and often fails.
How can we reduce the amount of interaction between those with mental disorders and the criminal justice system (the police) – how can we change the exaggerated public view/stereotype of the relationship between mental illness and violence?
What do you guys think of the insanity defense? Should the insanity defense become standardized federally (in terms of even being able to provide the defense, how to define it, and burden of proof)? We learned last quarter that certain mental illnesses, or even injuries to the brain, can cause behavioral changes, which are outside our own control. What should be the qualifications for the defense to be valid/force the jury not to find someone criminally responsible – brain scans from multiple doctors, one psychiatrist's opinion, some kind of combination of factors, etc.? What additional information may be necessary for the defense to become more popularly accepted in court? How might this defense change how we view mental illness, as well as the justice system?
So why are so many found criminally responsible, especially for such minor offenses that may go unnoticed had someone not reported a public disturbance? Perhaps, as the speaker said, many inaccurately link those with mental illnesses to violence, and thus rush to have police intervene. The United States does allow for the insanity/mental disorder defense, whereby someone can be held not responsible for their criminal actions because of a persistent mental disorder. However, mental health professionals are only allowed to testify, and ultimately the jury decides how criminally liable someone is. Thus, the insanity defense is hardly ever used and often fails.
How can we reduce the amount of interaction between those with mental disorders and the criminal justice system (the police) – how can we change the exaggerated public view/stereotype of the relationship between mental illness and violence?
What do you guys think of the insanity defense? Should the insanity defense become standardized federally (in terms of even being able to provide the defense, how to define it, and burden of proof)? We learned last quarter that certain mental illnesses, or even injuries to the brain, can cause behavioral changes, which are outside our own control. What should be the qualifications for the defense to be valid/force the jury not to find someone criminally responsible – brain scans from multiple doctors, one psychiatrist's opinion, some kind of combination of factors, etc.? What additional information may be necessary for the defense to become more popularly accepted in court? How might this defense change how we view mental illness, as well as the justice system?
