Explain How To Distinguish Between Mental Illness And Crime

Explain How To Distinguish Between Mental Illness And Criminality Usi

Explain how to distinguish between mental illness and criminality, using examples from the case studies to illustrate the difference. Explain how the criminal justice system has typically or “traditionally” addressed an offender who has committed a crime due to a mental health issue, using examples from the case studies to illustrate this approach. Explain how the contemporary criminal justice system addresses an offender who commits a crime due to a mental health issue, using examples from the case studies to illustrate your response. For example, address the following issues: How should the responding officer proceed? How should this person be processed through the criminal justice system? What are the appropriate charges, if any? How should the judge at the arraignment hearing proceed?

Paper For Above instruction

Distinguishing between mental illness and criminality is a complex but essential task within the criminal justice system. It requires a careful analysis of the individual's mental state at the time of the offense, behavioral context, and underlying mental health conditions. The process involves evaluating whether a defendant's actions were a result of mental illness or volitional misconduct, which directly impacts legal proceedings, charges, and sentencing. Case studies offer concrete examples demonstrating how mental health issues influence criminal behavior and the differing responses by the justice system across historical and contemporary contexts.

Historically, the criminal justice system often treated offenders with mental illness primarily as criminally responsible, similar to other offenders. For instance, in the case study of John, a man with schizophrenia who committed assault, the traditional approach would involve arrest, arraignment, and prosecution similar to a fully responsible individual. The rationale was that mental health issues were often overlooked or not sufficiently considered in legal proceedings, leading to punishment without adequately addressing underlying mental health needs (Gibel, 2009). The process typically involved criminal charges, possible detention in jails, and sentencing without necessarily providing mental health support or intervention.

In terms of procedural responses, law enforcement officers historically lacked specific training on mental health crises. As a result, responses may have led to the use of force or arrest without effective de-escalation strategies. Once in the system, courts rarely considered mental health diagnoses during arraignment or trial, and defendants with mental illness often faced punishment rather than treatment (Seena et al., 2018). In such cases, the judge’s role was limited to determining guilt and imposing sentencing, often ignoring the mental health context unless the defendant or defense presented specific mental health defenses or pleas.

In contrast, contemporary responses to offenders with mental health issues emphasize treatment and diversion over punishment. Modern protocols advocate for mental health evaluation at the scene and during processing, ensuring that officers, prosecutors, and judges recognize mental illness as a factor influencing criminal behavior. For example, in an updated case study involving Lisa, who exhibited psychotic symptoms and engaged in criminal acts, law enforcement officers are trained to perform crisis intervention assessments or involve mental health professionals early in the process (Lamb et al., 2014). This often leads to alternatives to incarceration, such as mental health courts, diversion programs, or hospitalization.

When responding to a crisis today, officers are encouraged to assess whether the individual poses an immediate danger to themselves or others and to involve trained mental health personnel when possible. If the individual is deemed mentally ill but not dangerous, they may be transported to a mental health facility rather than jail. The goal is to address mental health needs directly, thereby reducing recidivism and promoting recovery (NAMI, 2015). This approach also influences how cases proceed through the justice system, with greater emphasis on mental health evaluations and expert testimonies during arraignment and trial proceedings.

Charges for offenders with mental illnesses are also evolving. Instead of typical criminal charges, defendants may face charges that consider their mental state, such as "not guilty by reason of insanity" or reduced charges based on mental incapacity. For instance, in the case of Mark, who experienced a psychotic episode leading to a theft, the court might determine that he lacked criminal intent due to his mental state. In such cases, the justice system aims to balance accountability with appropriate treatment, often resulting in commitment to mental health facilities rather than traditional incarceration (Silver & Dvoskin, 2017).

During arraignment, judges are now trained to evaluate mental health evidence and determine whether the defendant is fit for trial or requires further mental health assessment. Judges may order competency evaluations or mental health hearings to establish the defendant's mental state at the time of the offense. If the defendant is found to be mentally ill but competent, the trial proceeds with considerations for mental health treatment as part of the sentencing or probation. If not competent, the court may delay proceedings or order treatment until competency is restored (Appelbaum, 2017).

Overall, modern practices reflect a shift toward understanding mental illness as a factor influencing criminal behavior rather than solely a legal fault. This perspective fosters a more humane and effective approach to justice, emphasizing rehabilitation and mental health care. It recognizes that distinguishing between mental illness and criminality requires ongoing assessment, multidisciplinary collaboration, and the development of policies that prioritize both public safety and individual well-being (Fazel & Ravindran, 2020).

References

• Appelbaum, P. S. (2017). Assessment of Competence to Stand Trial. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 45(2), 155-161.
• Fazel, S., & Ravindran, A. (2020). Enhancing mental health services in criminal justice. The Lancet Psychiatry, 7(4), 261-262.
• Gibel, R. (2009). The criminal responsibility of the mentally ill: Historical perspectives. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 99(3), 805-839.
• Lamb, H. R., Weinberger, L. E., & DeCuir, W. (2014). The police response to persons with mental illness. Psychiatric Services, 65(4), 422-425.
• NAMI. (2015). Best Practices in Mental Health Crisis Intervention. National Alliance on Mental Illness.
• Seena, M., Glover, J., & Johnson, S. (2018). Mental health and criminal justice: A review of policies and practices. Criminal Justice Review, 43(1), 55-72.
• Silver, E., & Dvoskin, J. (2017). Mental health issues in criminal defendants. The Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 40(2), 339-352.
• U.S. Department of Justice. (2016). Justice and Mental Health Collaboration. Federal Bureau of Prisons.
• Wang, X., & Scharf, D. (2021). Diversion programs for mentally ill offenders: Trends and effectiveness. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 60(4), 227-244.
• Yellowlees, P. M., & Keppler, J. (2019). Telepsychiatry and mental health services in criminal justice. Psychiatric Services, 70(7), 595-599.