Mental illness and crime
Criminality and psychiatric illnesses are two topics that have brought serious scrutiny and intense debate in the recent past and even today. Several research works confirm the relationship between crime and mental illness; most patients with mental illness are prone to violence and criminal activities if they are not treated at an appropriate time. Scientists and medical experts also confirm that psychiatric conditions can subject someone to the risks of crime. Also, the public perceives the mentally ill patients as dangerous individuals. In most cases, they are referred to as crazy; the biasness has also extended to the criminal justice system. The psychiatric patients are treated as offenders and are usually arrested for being charged and even jailed for a longer period than healthy people. The article’s focus is to dig deeper into the issue of mental illness and crime by analyzing three court cases related to the subjects.
Kansas v. Hendricks was a case in the Supreme Court in 1997 filled by Kansas against the respondent Hendricks who had sexually molested children and jailed for a reason. Initially, the respondent had been diagnosed, suffering from paedophilia, which is not cured and has made the respondent sexually uncontrollable. During the ruling, the Jury found Hendricks to be sexually violent. It was confirmed that under the Act of law that the condition qualifies for mental abnormality (Skelton, 1997).
Sell v. United States of the year 2003 involved the state-federal government against the psychiatric dentist on fraud and attempted murder. Sell has had a history of mental illness, making him incomplete to stand trial. He was hospitalized and forced to antipsychiatry drugs to face trial, an act that was supported by both the district court and the court of appeal. However, the Supreme Court assumed that the respondent was not dangerous, and the court erred in forcing medication on the respondent to phase trial.
In the last case, Zimmerman v Burch was a supreme court case in the year 1990. In this case, psychiatry was voluntarily subjected to mental illness treatment because of dangerousness. During the verdict, the court held that According to the United States constitution, mentally ill patients should never be treated because of their consent because they cannot decide on their treatments (Bernard, 1990).
In the above three cases, both the respondents who are psychiatric ill are portrayed to be dangerous to the public. In the first case; Kansa v, Hendricks, a lot of effort is concentrated on the dangers that the patient posse to the public than how he should be controlled. However, it is essential than the Supreme Court argument reduced the negative assumptions by the public.
In the second case; the Act of subjecting the psychiatric dentist to involuntary medical treatment does not conform to the law. No matter how guilty the patient may seem, everyone has consented to personal treatment. Just like in the last case, it is evident that mentally ill patients may be dangerous. However, it should be noted that it is the condition that has the power of driving the body towards such criminal acts. Thus, the public, government and anybody concerned to take the initiative of ensuring that the patients are protected.
Moreover, it can be advised that if any mentally ill patient starts showing signs of being dangerous to self or others without medication, it is the mandate of the family and the public to take actions at an early stage. These psychiatric patients should get appropriate treatments or rehabilitated to prevent harmfulness and destructions. Similarly, governments should take the initiative of offering special treatment in the juveniles or the rehabilitation centres to such people because the condition is not there choice. Doing so may help them from being dangerous to the public.
References
Skelton, Chris. “Kansas V. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997)”. Justia Law, 1997, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/346/.
Benard, Maryann. “Mental Illness And Supreme Court: Case Summaries: Mental Illness Policy Org.” Mental Illness Policy Org, 1990, https://mentalillnesspolicy.org/legal/mental-illness-supreme-court.html.
“Sell V. U.S., 539 U.S. 166”. Https://Www.Apa.Org, 2003, https://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/sell.