Mentally Ill Criminal Offenders
This is an excerpt from the paper...
Mental illness among criminal offenders has been subject to special attention for centuries and has, of late, become a locus for debate among social scientists, members of the judiciary and the bar, and in political circles (Linhorst & Dinks-Linhorst, 1999). In Roman and English law, and later in the law of the United States, there is a belief that persons who commit crimes as a consequence of mental illness should not be held criminally responsible because they lack the criminal intent to commit the acts. This belief informs the core of the so-called "insanity defense" in the United States, a plea option that allows a defendant to seek acquittal for the alleged criminal defense by reason of insanity (temporary or otherwise). If found not guilty by reason of insanity, most states automatically hospitalize the person or evaluate the need for hospitalization under criteria that are more likely to result in this disposition than civil commitment (Linhorst & Dinks- Linhorst, 1999). As Robinson (1993) has pointed out, the issue is complicated by the fact that at present, criminal offenders acquitted due to insanity can be released when they have regained their sanity but are still considered dangerous. Alternatively, when efforts are made to retain such offenders in institutional settings, the courts find that Due Process has been violated, as was the case in the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Fouca v. Louisiana (Robinson, 1993). At issue, therefore, is whet
. . .
mmitted to the state department of health for placement in a mental health facility. Linhorst and Dirks-Linhorst (1999) believe that although inpatient treatment of such offenders has historically been viewed as inadequate, more recent evidence suggests that inpatient treatment is improving. As significantly, insanity acquitees who are granted releases after a period of psychiatric hospitalization must more often than not remain in close contact (often in a residential setting) with psychiatric service providers.
Key components in the success of conditional release include developing conditions of release appropriate to the individual's clinical needs and to public safety needs, providing community-based treatment to meet the individual's psychiatric and rehabilitation needs, monitoring conditions of release to ensure compliance (even with medication demands), and revoking conditional releases and rehospitalizing should violations occur. However, not all insanity acquitees or mentally ill offenders can live safely in the community, even with the structure of conditions of release and community monitoring. State laws are the best and most useful methods of determining which offenders are released. In other words, each ind
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Linhorst Dinks-Linhorst, Lovell Jemelka, Offender Lucca, Chapter II, Linhorst Dirks-Linhorst, Alberta Canada, Heyrman Lurigio, Draine Solomon, Finally Fox, Bar Association, mentally ill, mentally ill offender, ill offender, mentally ill offenders, ill offenders, mental health, civil commitment, mental illness, stand trial, linhorst dinks-linhorst, dinks-linhorst 1999, linhorst dinks-linhorst 1999, temporary hospitalization, rehabilitation mentally ill, guilty reason insanity,
Approximate Word count = 6108
Approximate Pages = 24 (250 words per page)
More Essays on Mentally Ill Criminal Offenders
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
