Psychiatric Assessment on Mentally Ill Offenders - Coursework Example

Psychiatric assessment on mentally ill offenders Lecturer’s Due Introduction Following the usual criminal justice procedure a law breaker gets arrested, taken to the station, the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) decides whether to charge the offender with criminal offence. The offender appears before a magistrate court to determine the level of punishment (Smith 1982). If found guilty one faces a prison sentence, which involves paying a fine. However, the UK criminal justice system views it differently in the case of Mental Health problems (Prins, 1995). A person mental health status implies an irregular impact on the justice system. The state knows that the justice system needs to treat people with mental health issues differently. Some of the psychiatric defences that the state considers distinct are, insanity, diminished responsibility and infanticide. The law and mentally ill patients There are a number of situations the court can exempt a defendant from the normal sanctions of the court. One of those factors includes the consent of a psychiatrist who determines the mental state of a lawbreaker. A mental breakdown diagnosis could exempt an individual from the typical verdict of the law. The law also requires that prisoners with mental illness should receive fair and just treatment. The law states that mentally ill prisoners ought to go to the hospital under section 47 of the Mental Health Act (Menzies, 2002). Three defences Insanity, infanticide and law commission The initial recognition of insanity in criminal law in UK developed from a 1581English law treaty stating that, “If a madman or a natural lunatic in time of his insanity” murders someone, he or she is accountable. Insanity While reviewing the 1991 case of R v Burges, the defendant visited a friends place to watch a movie. After the movie the lady fell asleep on the couch, but woke up after the defendant started smashing her head with a bottle. Furthermore, he picked up the camera and continued hitting her on the head. During his presentation at the court, the defendant adduced medical expertise in order to plead that he was sleepwalking at the time of the incidence. The trial judge ruled that the only defence presented by the evidence indicates that it was insanity; therefore he was not guilty by reason of insanity. The judge decided that sleepwalking and specifically violence in sleep, is not normal (Andoh, 1993). A criminal offender considered insane may not be found guilty of a crime due to insanity. In some instances, the criminal may be found guilty but given a shorter and less severe sentence or punishment due to psychological impairment. According to UK laws, the state requires strong evidence. British courts came up with the ‘wild beast’ test, in the 18th century in which the criminal system cannot convict a person if they do not comprehend the character of the crime any more than a child or a wild beast. However, currently, the court does not use the term ‘lunatic’ or ‘wild beast’ any more but the procedures still remain the same. The British Law, in 19th century, codified the legal basis for the insanity with the M’Naughten Rule. Depending on the Jurisdiction, the court tests for legal insanity using a combination of the M’Naughten Rule- the offender does not know what he or she did, or failed to make a distinction between right and wrong. Secondly, the ‘Irresistible Impulse’ Test- the criminal law was as a result of mental disease, which led to uncontrollable actions. Thirdly, the ‘Durham Rule’- Regardless of clinical diagnosis and the defendant’s mental defects led to a criminal act. Lastly, the ‘Model Penal Code’- the defendant failed to understand the criminality of his or her actions or could not perform within the confinements of the law, due to mental defects (Gibbons, 1996). As part of the Northern Irish Law commission’s second programme Law Reform (2011-2015), the department of justice requested for the following reforms regarding the insanity defence. In Ireland and UK the review involves restructuring of court procedures, provision of a non-discriminatory definition of the term insanity and review of the whole defence and its appropriateness (Monaghan, 2012). Infanticide On 7th October 2012, Amelia Lily Sultan- Curtis died in hospital after a single blow to the head. The mother had post natal depression when she committed the crime. Natasha Sultan was to face murder charges but admitted the lesser charge of infanticide at the city’s crown court. The sentencing Judge Jeremy Richardson said that she was an utterly broken woman (Becker, 2001). Under the England and Wales, the partial defence of infanticide grants a justification for both manslaughter and murder. By partial, the justice system means that the person liable will not get a conviction for murder but they will face some type of prosecution. The Infanticide defence enacted in the Infanticide Act 1938 states that.” Where a woman wilfully kills her child aged below 12 months, but during the time of the deed her mind was unstable due to the effect of giving birth, the court considers it as manslaughter instead of murder.” For the validity of the partial defence, the following must apply the death caused by a wilful act or omission. Second, the child was below one year and finally, had an unstable mind during the time of the action caused by mental disorders such as postnatal stress (Kilday, 2013). Normally, the maximum penalty for a mother found guilty of infanticide the court considers it as manslaughter or murder and is sentenced for life in prison. The Coroners and Justice Act of 2009 made significant amendments on the partial defences namely in diminished responsibility and provocation. However, minimal reforms feature in infanticide. The hugest problem with infanticide is in the establishment of the case. For example, due to the interpretation of wilful act it could include a negligent act, which falls below the benchmark of gross negligence. Diminished responsibility In the 1984 case of R v Gittens, the defendant was a depressed person who killed his wife and stepdaughter after consuming alcohol. More chronic kinds of alcoholism and abuse of heroin could lead to abnormal cases of the mind. Under section 2, when a person commits a crime after consuming alcohol, he or she falls under the defence of diminished responsibility (Reed, 2011). It form part of the Homicide Act of 1957 as revised by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. When successfully appealed, it reduces a murder conviction to manslaughter. In order to relate to the defence a defendant needs to demonstrate the following: An abnormality of psychological functioning based on a renowned medical condition. Second, mental condition, which explains the defendants actions of murder and finally, a condition that substantially impaired his or her mental aptitude to either appreciate the nature of their deeds or form a rational decision. In the first requirement, prior to the Coroner and Justice Act, the law used the 1957 homicide act. The jury decided on whether the defendant was mentally ill or not and they were not bound to adhere to the medical opinion. For example, in the case of Peter Sutcliffe (the Yorkshire ripper), who the jury neglected the fact that he was a schizophrenic. In the third requirement, which states that the mental conditioned substantially impaired his/her mental ability, the law breaker must indicate that he or she had no ability to understand the nature of the crime, make proper decision, and inability to exercise self control (Reed, 2011). Ordinarily, any case that has a defence should proceed to trial. Concurrently, if a diminished responsibility case has defence, a defendant should appeal. However, the court is reluctant to new evidence. In 2011, R v Welsh, the appellant pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. After his trial, the court sentenced him to not less than 12 years in prison. However, appeal raised the question on whether it was correct to sentence the defendant. The defendant was a schizophrenic who stabbed a man in an utterly unprovoked situation. The purpose of the appeal was to ensure that the person received medical attention and stay at a secure mental hospital. The court upheld the case and agreed to the terms. Infanticide Versus diminished responsibility In the school of thought, most people feel that the state should consider abolishing the law on infanticide with the defence on diminished responsibilities. However, the Law Commission and the state refused to abolish as it argues that a mother who murdered her kid after delivering the child in a clandestine environment would have difficulty in pleading in such a situation. The impacts of mental disorder on criminal responsibility Criminal responsibility refers to the psychological state of a person during the time they commit an offence. A person who is suffering from mental disorder is not criminally responsible for their acts since they do cannot judge whether their actions were right or wrong. However, mental disorder does not totally exempt someone from criminal responsibility. If considered not criminally responsible, one is not released immediately; the defendant needs a psychiatric review in order to fully determine his or her crime. The mental disorder is relevant in cases where the prosecution needs to make a decision, fitness to plead and sentencing. Each case needs a thorough review inclusive of all information including that of the defendant’s actual state of mind during the act (Dupuis, 2013). Sufficient evidence that shows that the defendant is mentally ill, a prosecution is inappropriate unless the case is crucial or there is a likelihood of it reoccurring. In the case where the prosecution is totally satisfied with the defence, the offender’s health condition outweighs the public interest; the court decides to discontinue the case. In the recent meetings, the Forensic Faculty of the Royal College of psychiatrists decided that sex offenders need to improve the level of forensic assessment of mentally unstable criminals. Set under the criminal health Act of 2000, in April 2001, in both England and Wales. The Mental Health Act 2007 changed the definition of Mental Disorder (Gibbons, 1996). The Act defines it as mental illness, impairment and psychopathic disorder. Current acts believe that the justice system should involve psychiatric analysis towards the decision making process while dealing with sexual offenders. Currently, many offenders end up in prison regardless of the difficulties they go through while in the detention centre. Internationally, most infanticide laws place their foundation on the 1922 British Infanticide Act. Both England and Wales possess infanticide Acts, but Scotland does not. In the 1922 Act, women who commit infanticide are usually charged with manslaughter regardless of mental state of the parent (Reed, 2011). In England, the law allows women who kill their children a chance of probation in order to demand psychiatric treatment for mothers with mental illness. Psychiatrists play a vital role in identifying the signs and symptoms of peripartum psychiatric disorders. Conclusion From the arguments above, in a bid to answer the question on the exemption of mentally ill offenders from the normal sanctions of the court, several arguments have emerged. Firstly, it is true to say that a psychiatric diagnosis can exempt a psychologically unstable criminal from the normal verdicts of the criminal justice system. Secondly, the Mental Health Human Rights Act shows that every defendant has a right to medical care and support (Thornicroft, 2004). Based on the three defences, diminished responsibility, insanity and infanticide the British Law states that the defendant should provide sufficient evidence in order to prove their inability to control their actions. Each system has some amendments, which make the justice system a little bit efficient. The British criminal Justice System should also ensure full access to community justice and psychiatric care for the psychologically impaired suspects. Work cited Andoh B (1993) The McNaughten Rules – The story so far. Medico-Legal Journal 61, 93-103 Becker T, Vázquez-Barquero JL (2001) The European perspective of psychiatric reform. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 104 (Suppl. 410), 8-14 Dupuis, T., MacKay, R., & Nicol, J. (2013, December 16). Current Publications: Law, justice and rights. : Current Issues in Mental Health in Canada: Mental Health and the Criminal Justice System. Retrieved April 30, 2014, from http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/2013-88-e.html Gibbons, P., Mulryan, N., & O’Connor, A. (1996). The insanity defence in Ireland: A study of guilty but insane patients 1850–1995. European Psychiatry, 11, 284s. Gostin LO (2000) Human Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The European Convention of Human Rights. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 23/2, 125-159 Hale, B. (20102010). Mental health law(Fifth ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell, Thomson Reuters. Kilday, A. (2013). A History of Infanticide in Britain, c. 1600 to the Present. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Menzies R (2002) Historical Profiles of Criminal Insanity. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 25, 379-404 Monaghan, N. (2012). Criminal law (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Prins, Herschel A.(1995). Offenders, deviants or patients?. 2nd ed. London: New York : Print. Reed, A. (2011). Loss of control and diminished responsibility domestic, comparative and international perspectives. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate Pub.. Smith R (1982) Criminal Insanity: From a Historical Point of View. Bulletin of the American and Academic Psychiatry and Law 11, 27-34 Thornicroft G, Tansella M (2004) Components of a modern mental health service: a pragmatic balance of community and hospital care: overview of systematic evidence. British Journal of Psychiatry 185, 283-290 Read More