Criminals and mental illness

[Rye_P]

All criminals are mentally ill.

However, there's a huge range of mental illness and only a few of them can be use as a pardon in case of criminal law. It may varied depends on the country.

And hitting someone without any reason could be perceived as one sign of mental illness.
Hitting someone with a reason and it's a repeated behaviour also one sign.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

In fact he is 100% capable of understanding and wanting.
But neuropsychiatrists explain why he is so different than loving and calm people.

Okay... but my question had to do with using mental illnesses as a justification and explanation of why people commit horrific crimes.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

All criminals are mentally ill.

However, there's a huge range of mental illness and only a few of them can be use as a pardon in case of criminal law. It may varied depends on the country.

And hitting someone without any reason could be perceived as one sign of mental illness.
Hitting someone with a reason and it's a repeated behaviour also one sign.

Thank you for proving my point in the OP (no sarcasm intended).

Why can't a criminal commit a horrific act because he wanted to not because he has a mental illness?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I don't think it matters whether they are "ill" or not. What matters is are they redeemable, and is it worth the risk to try.

In the case of serial killers, mass killers, and ideological killers, I believe the risk is too great. Society should not have to take on that risk to redeem a killer that has shown themselves to be determined to kill others, and likely to kill again if given the opportunity. But with the others, even if they have to spend the rest of their lives in prison because they cannot be trusted to live in an free society, they can still be a positive influence within that context.

Well, one's redemption depends on a lot of things-one, if they have a mental illness, two, if they can survive in the outside world, three, how can they build relationships and work in society who deems them evil, and other. In some respects, that sounds worse than being put in the electric chair (in comparison).

They do have treatment facilities for criminals who have mental illnesses but not all do have mental illnesses and are in regular jail so it depends.

 

[Estro Felino]

Okay... but my question had to do with using mental illnesses as a justification and explanation of why people commit horrific crimes.

If I were a criminologist I would study Cruz' case thoroughly, and professionaly.
With the help of psychiatrists and anthropologists.

Studying a person to understand how a "criminal brain" works is not justifying them.
I do believe Cruz deserves a life stentence, and I do not believe in the penalty as instrument of vengeance. As vendetta.
Cruz' punishment has to consist in being examined by professionals, so we jurists can undetstand what pushes people to commit such atrocious acts...so we can prevent them.

Even in those cases where the culprit was 100% sound of mind...and acted out of pure wickedness.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Should criminals who commit horrific crimes (sex abuse, serial killer, etc) need to be provided justification of having a mental illness in order for the public to understand how anyone can perform such horrendous acts?

I don't believe all criminals have mental illness only that they intentionally choose to break the law and harm others and are suffering the consequences of their actions. When saying "he had a mental illness" to justify the intent it's almost as if the public is getting the criminal off the hook.

While some criminals do have mental illnesses, this is focusing on those who intentionally commit crimes and are in jail (or so have you-edit-without mental illnesses).

If I'm understanding the OP correctly, I think you're talking about a view I've seen espoused here on RF once or twice. Namely that to commit horrific crimes, you must be mentally ill.

It's not accurate, in any way shape or form that I can understand. Some criminals obviously do have mental illness, just as some non-criminals do. But to take a lack of understanding of criminal motivations and attribute it to mentall illness doesn't really bear up to scrutiny. (ie. I could never commit such a crime...therefore these people are different to me...therefore they are mentally ill)

I do also wonder how many people automatically think of mental illness when looking at victims of crime. Mentally ill people are approximately 3 times more likely than others to be victims of crime (I'm obviously broad-brushing here) for a whole range of reasons.

Apart from the somewhat normal human behaviour of dehumanising those who are different to ourselves (criminals for most of us, and the mentally ill for a somewhat smaller group of us) it's worth considering;
1) Mentally ill in terms of crime refers to people who are ill at the time of committing an offence. The mental state of a mentally ill individual is not unchanging.
2) Mentally ill in terms of crime refers to the capacity of an individual to understand right from wrong (in simple terms). In NSW, the wording of this is that a jury can find an 'act proven but not criminally responsible' if 'The impairment had the effect that the person did not know the nature and quality of the act; or that it was wrong because the person could not reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether the act was wrong.’ My father-in-law suffers from depression, but is treated for this, and whilst it causes some hardship, and can certainly be classed as a mental illness, it's not going to be an adequate defence for him if he ends up charged with murder one day.
3) People who are found to be physically responsible, but not mentally capable are not found 'innocent by way of insanity' as common thought often suggests. Instead they are sentenced to a long-term supervision order which will include incarceration in a mental health facility on a non-volunteer basis for a considerable time. Even after release (which is generally staged, and takes considerable effort to get to) they will continue to be heavily supervised, quite possibly for the rest of their lives. Obviously this varies in different jurisdictions.
Explainer: The mental impairment defence in homicide cases - ABC News

 

[Stevicus]

I read. But anyone can shoot someone without a mental illness. How does the nature of the crime (assuming they did not have a mental illness beforehand) determine whether they should see a psychiatrist or be convicted to jail?

Well, if it's a severe or violent crime, then they probably should be given some sort of psych evaluation. Even if they're mentally ill, it may not necessarily be considered legally "insane" in a court of law.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Even in those cases where the culprit was 100% sound of mind...and acted out of pure wickedness.

Yes. Many people see these culprits with sound minds to have mental illnesses to justify why they do what they do. I don't see mental illness as a blanked justification.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Well, if it's a severe or violent crime, then they probably should be given some sort of psych evaluation. Even if they're mentally ill, it may not necessarily be considered legally "insane" in a court of law.

I read. So severity of a crime (child rape) determines a walk to the psych office and not the nature of the crime (hearing a voice telling them they should hurt another)?

I don't know if all criminals get psych evaluations as a default, but if not, then the severity of the crime takes away the burden of that person suffering from the cause of their intentional actions.

 

[exchemist]

Should criminals who commit horrific crimes (sex abuse, serial killer, etc) need to be provided justification of having a mental illness in order for the public to understand how anyone can perform such horrendous acts?

I don't believe all criminals have mental illness only that they intentionally choose to break the law and harm others and are suffering the consequences of their actions. When saying "he had a mental illness" to justify the intent it's almost as if the public is getting the criminal off the hook.

While some criminals do have mental illnesses, this is focusing on those who intentionally commit crimes and are in jail (or so have you-edit-without mental illnesses).

I'm with @SalixIncendium on this.

Mental illness is sometimes put forward as a defence. Also sometimes the judge will, on his or her own initiative, ask for psychiatric reports before sentence is passed. So the courts have ways to evaluate whether a particular criminal is mentally ill or not. From this it is clear that the criminal justice system starts from the presumption that the criminal is fully responsible for his or her actions, unless the contrary can be shown in mitigation.

I am not aware that people in general assume those who commit horrible crimes must be mentally ill. (Though in the worst cases it does tend to cross your mind, of course). So I don't really understand what it is that bothers you here.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I am not aware that people in general assume those who commit horrible crimes must be mentally ill. (Though in the worst cases it does tend to cross your mind, of course). So I don't really understand what it is that bothers you here.

It doesn't bother me. I'm just heading out. I was just asking a distinct question about the stereotype of saying people are mentally illness based on the horrific acts they commit.

I don't know anything of the law and the logistics of mental illness so my question didn't focus on those two things. I noticed a lot of people have the same mentality as post #21 does.

I disagree that should be the case, but it doesn't hurt to ask others about it.

 

[exchemist]

It doesn't bother me. I'm just heading out. I was just asking a distinct question about the stereotype of saying people are mentally illness based on the horrific acts they commit.

I don't know anything of the law and the logistics of mental illness so my question didn't focus on those two things. I noticed a lot of people have the same mentality as post #21 does.

I disagree that should be the case, but it doesn't hurt to ask others about it.

Yes, I think post 21 is badly misconceived. I must say had never come across this attitude but you have smoked out an example straight away!

Sure, there are undoubtedly social, psychological, financial, medical, etc. factors and pressures that make people more likely to commit certain sorts of crime. But that in my view is a long way from a blanket view that anyone who commits a crime is mentally ill. That flies in the face of everyday experience. After all, most people, subject to the same pressures and factors, do not commit crimes.

 

[oldbadger]

Should criminals who commit horrific crimes (sex abuse, serial killer, etc) need to be provided justification of having a mental illness in order for the public to understand how anyone can perform such horrendous acts?

I don't believe all criminals have mental illness only that they intentionally choose to break the law and harm others and are suffering the consequences of their actions. When saying "he had a mental illness" to justify the intent it's almost as if the public is getting the criminal off the hook.

While some criminals do have mental illnesses, this is focusing on those who intentionally commit crimes and are in jail (or so have you-edit-without mental illnesses).

Many infamous Brit criminals were convicted as criminals even though they might have been secured in mental hospital environments. Yet others would be acquitted and secured in high security mental hospitals untill able to live normal lives.

The difference seems to have been decided on the basis of whether the defendant was able to understand that what they were doing was wrong but did it anyway. In other words, there had to be a total 'loss of reason of the mind' before, during and after the act.

We made many mistakes of course, especially back when we executed capital crimes.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This has to do with the stereotype that all criminals who commit horrific crimes have mental illnesses even though some do it intentionally without any mental illness involved.

It's a tragic, unfortunate, and horrible stereotype that needs to die. We can't deny many in jail do have mental illness, but America is a cruel and harsh society and jail and prison have basically become the way this place addresses serious mental illness because of decades of efforts by politicians to downplay mental illness amd deminish efforts into treating it by reducing funding, closing treatment facilities, and using the mentally ill as a scape goat for societal violence.

 

[exchemist]

It's a tragic, unfortunate, and horrible stereotype that needs to die. We can't deny many in jail do have mental illness, but America is a cruel and harsh society and jail and prison have basically become the way this place addresses serious mental illness because of decades of efforts by politicians to downplay mental illness amd deminish efforts into treating it by reducing funding, closing treatment facilities, and using the mentally ill as a scape goat for societal violence.

That's a very interesting comment.

It occurs to me - durrh - that mental illness may get de-prioritised in a health system driven by market forces. Who has an incentive to run treatment centres for low or zero income drug addicts, petty criminals and mentally ill people with no financial support?

 

[Twilight Hue]

This has to do with the stereotype that all criminals who commit horrific crimes have mental illnesses even though some do it intentionally without any mental illness involved.

I think some people are biologically programmed rendering them unable to ever transition safely back into society. Serial killers are a prime example.

Interesting that Ed Gein was committed to an insane asylum while Ted Bundy was executed.

Either way, there has to be a point where incorrigible people like this need to be permanently separated from the public because of their propensity to harm again and again no matter if its mental treatment or penal incarceration. Some cannot be redeemed no matter what.

 

[Rye_P]

Thank you for proving my point in the OP (no sarcasm intended).

Why can't a criminal commit a horrific act because he wanted to not because he has a mental illness?

None taken.

Because by wanting it happen is a sign of mental illness already.

And what part of my mentality that disturb you?

 

[Heyo]

It doesn't bother me. I'm just heading out. I was just asking a distinct question about the stereotype of saying people are mentally illness based on the horrific acts they commit.

If they are "just normal people", then what is preventing me or my neighbour from committing horrible crimes?
They must be different, not like me - or I could be like them.

 

[Heyo]

I don't know anything of the law and the logistics of mental illness so my question didn't focus on those two things.

Just as an aside, not to derail the thread:
If you face capital punishment you want to plead insanity.
In all other cases you probably don't. When you are considered sane, you do your sentence and you know how long.
Insanity gets you into the asylum until healed - which can be longer than a sentence and you don't know how long it will take.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

All criminals are mentally ill.

That is actually false, and that sort of malarkey is a reason why mental illness is so heavily stigmatized.
Ultimately, most of those with a mental illness are not criminals. Many criminals are not mentally ill.

Because by wanting it happen is a sign of mental illness already.

Again, not true. Most people incarcerated in America are in on non-violent drug charges. Poor people stealing for survival isn't a mental illness.
Most people with mental illnesses are not criminals, and in all reality are far more likely to be victims of crime than perpetrators of crime.