Civil Committment and the Mentally Ill - Essay Example

Running Head: Civil Commitment and the mentally ill Civil Commitment and the mentally ill s [Course name] [Date] Civil Commitment and the mentally ill With the passage of time litigation procedure has become increasingly convoluted in order to ensure that every individual tried and sentenced effectively and fairly. This objective is achieved by incorporating scientific knowledge to deliberate upon cases and out of all the scientific methods of research, psychology and psychiatry have been a major contributing factor on a legal front and forms the basis of the insanity defense.

In criminal trials, insanity defense refers to the defense plea adopted by the defendant as a plausible argument that exempts them from criminal liability as they were legally insane during the commission of the crime. According to a study quoted in Waterloo Cedar falls Courier about 1% of the defendants, who are charged with a felony use the Insanity Defense in order to evade punishments or any legal repercussion as a result of the crime in the United States. And out of this 1%, only one-fourth of the people are successful in getting exempted from legal trial.

After the defendant raises the insanity defense, the judge commits them to a competence examination, in order to check the validity of their claims. These evaluations are carried out in proper medical and psychological facilities and the individual is put through countless tests and the defendant’s social history is assessed. (Greene et.al, 2006, p. 222) Over the years, the insanity defense has attracted a huge amount criticisms and controversies regarding its applicability and due to lack of development in this area.

The most critical aspect that is raised by the insanity defense is the fact that it does not incarcerate dangerous criminals but send them off to a hospital facility, where they are given treatment and eventually frees them. As mentioned earlier, the field of psychology is still in its embryonic stage and it is very easy for individuals to fake symptoms to evade punishment or may suppress their symptoms for a while so that they can easily be let off. The case of E.E. Kemper III epitomizes this aspect of the argument, whereby he was convicted for murdering his grandparents and then spent five years in a facility for the criminally insane.

He was given proper counseling and was released in 1970; later he petitioned to seal his psychiatric record and considering his condition, his plea was accepted. What was not known to the authorities by then was the fact that Kemper had murdered his mother and seven other women, in a very hostile manner since the time of his release. Kemper’s example is ideal for demonstrating that how easy it is for criminally insane people to fake and put on a normal front, which helps them to escape the repercussions.

(Greene et.al, 2006, p. 243) Secondly, psychological screening and testing is extremely expensive and eventually the defense of insanity is only reasonable for people who have the money to afford. In this regard, many people who do not have the money and yet committed the crime due to insanity may actually be held legally liable. Furthermore, since psychiatry and psychology are pseudoscience and have no tangible evidence to substantiate the claims; heavy reliance on these aspects is heavily criticized by legal analysts.

Considering the aforementioned criticisms of the study are the major limitations when it comes to psychological screen an individual pleading guilty for reason of insanity. The most fundamental difficulties involve the cost factor of the tests and psychological screening, the fact that the field of psychology and psychiatry is still underdeveloped and also that it is very easy for people to fake symptoms or pretend they have overcome the symptoms. These aspects of this defense make it a very befuddling concept and it is one of the main reasons as to why many legal analysts may not be in favor of the argument.

Legal experts and psychologists have been working very hard to do further researches in to the matter; however, so far the defense of insanity is a mere legal loophole and may have no substantiality for numerous experts. References Greene, E et.al. 2006. Wrightman’s psychology and the legal system. Cengage Learning: P.p 222, 243 Magee, D. 2009. Defense of insanity rarely used, rarely works. Waterloo Cedar Falls Courier.