Criminal Law of England & Wales The Psychological Theory - Research Paper Example

Running head: Criminal Law of England & Wales CRIMINAL LAW OF ENGLAND & WALES – THE PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY Goes Here al Affiliation Goes HereAbstract The paper discusses the criminal law of England and Wales from the perspective of psychological theory, and to what extent this theory is used when defendants lack capacity, specifically when a defendant uses “intoxication” as a defense. Criminal Law of England & Wales – The Psychological Theory Introduction The English criminal law refers to the law under the jurisdiction of England and Wales that deals with various crimes and its consequences. This law is complementary to the civil law of England and Wales. The criminal acts are considered as it is committed against a whole community. The state has the responsibility to bring justice to the victim and penalize the convict based on the available proofs and evidences. The criminal laws deal differently with different types of crimes. That means the punishment is not the same for every crime committed. The law-makers create different laws for different crimes. According to the constitution, every crime should be dealt with severity depending upon its cause and effect on the community. There are two basic elements of a crime – one is the criminal and the other is the intention or motive with which the crime is being committed (Ashford, Chard & Redhouse, 2006). However, in many cases, the law states that it is not necessary to show the intention of committing the crime. This is where the court and the lawyers use the term strict liability. This is the loop hole that the law of crime possesses. It is necessary for the law-makers to give the motive of the crime more importance as it would reflect the psychological state of the mind of the person is committing the crime. Mental Disabilities, Specific Learning Difficulties and Mental Capacity The law-makers should make a better use of the psychological theory and research while formulating rules and laws of criminal responsibilities. There are numerous cases where the criminal is mentally not stable and has committed a crime (Bailey & Turbuck, 2006). This is where the research for psychological influence on crime comes in place. For example, a mentally retarded boy has picked up a pack of candy from the store as he likes it and does not pay the money for the same as he does not have it. The shop owner has filed a law suit against him and the court also does not look at the circumstances or his psychological state of mind and convicts him with the charges and handed him punishment for the same (Bradley, 2009). This is where the law-makers need to understand the psychological state of mind of the criminal when the crime is being committed. This approach would surely make the law more strong. The law-makers need to understand and research why the mental disability has happened to the boy – it can be due to ill-health or learning disability or sometimes, it may be due to severe brain damage. Today, the mental incapacity or lack capacity gets legal significance only in forums such as the tribunals, family and civil hearings. It is necessary to make the lack of mental capacity significant in the criminal proceedings as well (Gibbs & Hickson, 2009). The law-makers need to understand the psychological state of the mind and whether the accused is mentally fit to plead. The particular psychological state of mind is therefore important. In other words, it is important to know the mental state of the defendant, and whether it should significantly affect the sentencing option (Hagell, 2002). The court and tribunal proceedings need to make adjustments in order to accommodate people with mental retardation, whether in the form of witnesses or the parties in the tribunal, family or civil proceedings or defendants in criminal proceedings. It is necessary for the judges to conduct hearings and they should ensure that people with mental disabilities can get the fullest participation in the judicial proceedings. However, there is a flip side, the judge should also make sure that prejudice should be avoided for other parties (HM Courts Service, 2009). Intoxication Intoxication is technically not referred to as a defense. However, it negates the guilty minds of the specific intent of the offense. For example, it commutes a murder sentence to manslaughter. In other words, it can be explained as if a man is drunk or drugged heavily that he was not capable of developing a motive for committing the crime. The voluntary intoxication is considered as reckless or a state of basic intent. This means the criminal cannot be sentenced for a crime, which is more than what he has intended for. One of the notable cases on this ground is the R V Sheehan and Moore case where these two people were convicted of manslaughter. These two people actually committed a heinous crime of throwing petrol on the tramp and set them on fire. They were supposed to be convicted of murder but it went down to manslaughter. It was a crime of basic intent. In the English law, intoxication is a circumstance where the capacity of the defendant can be altered from the guilty mind to the other state of mind, which is not a basic intent of the crime. There are basically two types of intoxication – voluntary and involuntary intoxication. The voluntary intoxication is the state where the defendant willfully consumes drug and alcohol before committing the act that constitute the prohibited conduct of an offence. Whereas in involuntary intoxication, the judge remains a bit lenient to the convict as the defendant gets intoxicated accidentally or by fault where he did not have any intent of being intoxicated. Vulnerable Defendants in the Criminal Courts The report shows the result about the adult defendants that have learning disabilities, rather than that of the adults that are vulnerable. The reflection of the focus is mainly from the program named Prison Reform Trust No One Knows. The recent studies have shown that the existing provisions of the vulnerable defendants generally tend to prioritize the needs of the individuals that have mental health problems more than that of their needs towards the inability of learning (Murphy & Mason, 2005). It is because of this fact that the most pressing gaps in the provision of vulnerability is towards the learning disability of the individual. The law-makers need to focus on this particular psychological aspect while formulating the rules of crime – especially mental health pertaining to the learning disability. Though it is a fact that the English court could and should understand the psychological aspects while formulating the rules, it is difficult to measure the prevalence of the learning disabilities among the defendants. The No One Knows program have shown the result that there is a vast hidden problems with a large number of men, women and children with high learning disabilities get trapped in the criminal justice system. There are about 20 to 30% of these criminal offenders who suffer with learning difficulties or disabilities, which help them adjusting with the criminal justice system (Loucks, 2007). Mason and Murphy (2007) have stated that there has been very less or even no research in England, which could specifically examine the prevalence of learning disabilities among the people who appeared before court. It is quite natural that both suspect and defendant can be suffered from the psychological imbalance like the learning disabilities – as far as their general well-being is concerned (Myers, 2004). Moreover it should be fundamental for them that their mental state should be considered before judging or convicting them for the crime that they have committed. This might bring these people to the risk of wrongful conviction. Hence the law-makers need to make laws keeping the state of the mind of these types of suspects and defendants. There have been many empirical studies that strongly suggested that both mentally retarded defendants and suspects are vulnerable as compared to their non-disabled counterparts. Capacity A revised concept of Mental Capacity Act 2005 has been introduced. In this Act, a presumption has been introduced that every vulnerable adult has the capacity to take his/her decision and it is to be assumed that they have the capacity to do so unless that has been proved otherwise. Earlier it was considered that an adult having mental imbalance either have or do not have the mental capacity to take any decision (Rack, 2005). With the amendments in the Mental Capacity Act 2005, now it is dependent upon the specific decision that is being taken by the individual. In certain cases, there are chances that mentally impaired individuals have the capacity to take decisions about their own life, but not about other things. Here, it’s important to mention some of the salient features of Mental Capacity Act 2005. The five key principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 are as follows: 1. It should be assumed that a person has the capacity unless it is proved that the individual lacks capacity at that time. 2. It is necessary to take all the practical possible steps in order help someone to make and informed decision. 3. A person should not be regarded incapable of taking any decision unless and until it is proved that the person has lack capacity to take a sound and fruitful decision. 4. While making a decision about someone lacking capacity, it is to be kept in mind that the decision should act in the best of their interest. 5. While making the best interest decision, one should look out for the least restrictive options, which would meet the person’s requirements. Conclusion & Recommendations The whole aim of this study was to analyze psychological theory, and to what extent psychological theory is used when defendants lack capacity, specifically when a defendant uses “intoxication” as a defense. Also, the paper evaluated how the vulnerable adults who are lacking capacity should be given more justice in the criminal case scenarios so that they do not get a fall under injustice. With the passage of time and with numerous cases in England and Wales wherein defendants who lacked capacity were somewhat wrongly charged with crimes, there have been amendments to the English Law pertaining to the special case scenarios where both accused and defendants are mentally impaired. These amendments were made keeping their interests in mind. As these people lack capacity of making a sound decision, their cases should be considered as special and should be seen at a different angle so that justice do not get denied for these special cases (Seden, 2006). There have been several recommendations being put forward in order to improve the provision of vulnerable adult defendants. However, these recommendations are not aimed at securing the favorable treatment towards the vulnerable adult defendants. The focus is mainly aimed at proportionate and fair treatment. The overall aims of these recommendations are twofold – firstly to ensure the effective participation of these adults in the court proceedings wherever possible allowing justice to be done and secondly, making sure of addressing the requirements of the defendants both within and outside the criminal justice system. This would reduce the risk of future offence and it will also protect the welfare of the individual. References Ashford, M., Chard, A. and Redhouse, N. (2006) Defending Young People in the Criminal Justice System (3rd ed.), London: Legal Action Group. Bailey, S. and Tarbuck, P. (2006) Recent advances in the development of screening tools for mental health in young offenders, Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 19 (4), 373-77. Bradley, K. (2009) The Bradley Report: Lord Bradley’s review of people with mental health problems or learning disabilities in the criminal justice system, London: Department of Health. Gibbs, P. and Hickson, S. (2009) Children: Innocent until proven guilty: A report on the overuse of remand for children in England and Wales and how it can be addressed, London: Prison Reform Trust. Hagell, A (2002). The mental health of young offenders, a report commissioned by the Mental Health Foundation, London: Mental Health Foundation. HM Courts Service (2009) Young people with learning disabilities and learning difficulties in the criminal courts. A guide for MHCS staff, London, HMCS Loucks, N. (2007) No One Knows: Offenders with Learning Difficulties and Learning Disabilities. Review of prevalence and associated needs. London: Prison Reform Trust. Mason, J. and Murphy, G. H. (2007) Intellectual disability amongst people on probation: prevalence and outcome. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 46(3), 230-238. Murphy, G. and Mason, J. (2005) People with Intellectual Disabilities who are At Risk of Offending. In N. Bouras, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Myers, F. (2004) On the Borderline? People with Learning Disabilities and/or Autistic Spectrum Disorders in Secure, Forensic and Other Specialist Settings. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Social Research. Rack, J. (2005) The Incidence of Hidden Disabilities in the Prison Population. Egham, Surrey: Dyslexia Institute. Seden, R. (2006) Access to Justice for Vulnerable Defendants. Legal Action, March 2006, 11-12. Read More