Many incarcerated persons have a mental illness, while those out may have a history of legal troubles. This leads to the association of mental illnesses with crimes, especially violence. The increased number of mass shootings and other serious offenses publicized by media lead to many people attributing a causal relationship between mental illnesses and crime. This paper will discuss the relationship between mental illnesses and crime and how the court process deals with issues that arise.
Some mental illnesses cause patients to commit crimes. Violence is a symptom of mental illnesses that go untreated. Patients who suffer from hallucinations, delusions, depressive, and manic symptoms may also inadvertently commit crimes. This likelihood of violence or other crimes is exacerbated by other factors such as homelessness, poverty, unemployment, and drug usage. Those with serious mental illnesses may likely commit crimes directly or partly linked to the symptoms of their illness. However, serious mental illnesses generally do not increase the rate of crimes, with many mentally ill persons likely to be victims rather than perpetrators (Morse, 2018). Drug usage is a common factor that increases the chances of mentally ill people committing crimes. On the other hand, social-economic factors lead to more interaction between the police, courts, and affected individuals. Homeless people with mental illnesses may, for example, be arrested for minor crimes such as jaywalking or disturbing public peace. Thus, while mental illnesses do not actually cause a majority of crimes or even result in serious offenses, many patients may end up getting arrested and incarcerated. This trend, therefore, presents a few unique challenges to the legal system dealing with how these individuals are to be treated, the impact of their illnesses on their criminal culpability, and whether they should receive treatment as prisoners. Causation in the context of the actual crime committed and its closeness to the mental illness must be carefully evaluated while also considering the loss of control caused by the disorder. All these factors must be closely investigated before establishing a predictability model or a causal relationship.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Several cases dealing with mentally ill people have established rules and procedures to be followed when dealing with crimes committed by mentally ill individuals. In O’Connor v Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975), the court held that states could not confine patients who are not deemed dangerous to themselves or others without having more evidence. It is immaterial whether the patient is suicidal, gravely disabled, or cannot avoid the risks associated with freedom when living alone or with family or friends (Bernard, 2019). In Zinermon v Burch, 494 U.S. 113 (1990), the court held that an accused who had voluntarily committed himself for treatment was prohibited by the U.S. constitution from doing so if he was incapable of informed consent. This case wrongly viewed O’Connor v Donaldson as allowing states not to involuntary commit anyone who was not dangerous to anyone else or anyone who could live safely in freedom. The case also gave States more leeway to define grave disability hence permitting involuntary commitment of those whose neglect or refusal for self-care could threaten their wellbeing or others (Bernard, 2019). Lastly, in Kansas v Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997), a pedophile released from prison was placed in a civil commitment by a jury trial. The court believed that double jeopardy was not committed by laws made after the fact or that abused the due process if it was proven that the petitioner posed a current danger to children. Thus, a mentally ill person whose illness still risked the wellbeing of others could be civilly detained if no treatment was available. The holding was modified in Kansas v Crane, 534 U.S. 407 (2002), which held that there must be proof of a serious inability to control behavior that is linked with the severity of the mental illness and nature of the psychiatric disorder to distinguish the offender from the recidivism of those convicted in ordinary criminal cases.
The place of mental illness in the evaluation of one’s criminal background is essential. It helps identify whether there was close causation of the crime to the symptoms of the mental illness. This consideration could help identify whether the offender needs treatment or confinement and if it is constitutional to involuntary render the same to them. It is also essential in preventing future crime or recidivism related to the same illness rather than lack of rehabilitation.
References
Bernard, M. A. (2019, January 23). Mental illness and Supreme Court: Case summaries . Mental Illness Policy Org. https://mentalillnesspolicy.org/legal/mental-illness-supreme-court.html
Morse, S. J. (2018). Mental disorder and criminal justice. Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law , 1751 , 253-325. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2753&context=faculty_scholarship
