Most Helpful Opinions
Firdst thing is first, crime is never justifiable.
However to answer your question, it all depends on the circumstance and type of crime. There shouldn’t be any excuse or lenient punishment for intentional violent/physical crimes, regardless of the perpetrators’ mental health conditions.
But there should be some understanding from the authorities towards those mentally ill who commit non violent crimes, especially if they are unaware that they committed said non violent crimes. Not saying that the law should look the other way but instead make the person pay a small fee and also seek mandatory mental health treatment.0
No I don't think anything justifies things like murder, rape, grievous bodily harm. You've changed someone's life forever and there's NO going back.
I do however think there is an INSTITUTIONAL flaw when it comes to mental health. We need to raise more awareness and we need more services accessible. Therapy is CRAZY expensive and most people cannot afford it. Sure we have the NHS here in the UK, but the waiting list is crazy long and the therapy sessions are sadly generic. And let's not even begin with antidepressants...0
The only standard should be if they are aware of the consequences of their actions. If they are aware of the difference between right and wrong. If they aren't aware of those things, yes, more leniency but psychiatric help.
If they are aware, in my opinion, no. Their mental illness isn't an excuse. Quite frankly, it would be a free for all. Everyone would claim to have a mental illness to avoid harsh punishment that may actually be fitting.2
What Girls & Guys Said
1. Most people who are mentally ill know the difference between right and wrong and they have the ability to conform their behavior to society's standards, but they just don't want to do that. Yes, they should be punished for their criminal behavior.
2. If they lack an understanding of right vs. wrong, or if they truly can't control their behavior, they should be locked away for treatment.34
Nope, circumstances are taken in to account though.
often they may get placed in a Secure Psychiatric Hospital (Broadmoor etc ).
The main difference is they will undergo an assessment by a clinical psychologist, this assessment will then be passed to the court as part of any mitigating or otherwise factors.
It may actually be the case and I’ve seen it, where a person without mental health issues is given a ‘lesser sentence’ and someone post assessment is consider likely to repeat offend and is sentenced to time at a secure unit.
a lot comes down to the Clinical Psychologist and their assessment or review, this is very much based on risk factors to others and themselves, coupled with likelihood of a repeat offence or similar offence. Some are straightforward, some are far harder to work through.10
No, I think of crimes as taking care of the victims. If your a victim your not going to want someone to get off easier cause they had a mental illness.
Of course a victim can always go on record as saying they don't think the perp should get that bad of a charge, conviction, etc...
As for most people, mental illness is usually an excuse. I do know and agree it is a real disease and problem but it is not a excuse for a crime.
I have no issues with someone getting the same sentence and rather than going to prison they go to a state mental hospital to get treatment FOR THE EXACT SAME AMOUNT OF TIME THEY WOULD OF BEEN IN PRISON. Hopefully they get the help they need by the time they get out.0
Easy way to answer the question is make it personal. Put yourself in their shoes. If it's you or your family that's the victim. If a criminal broke into your moms home and violently raped her...
Do you think that guy should get a lesser sentence because it turns out he's mentally ill?
Or do you not care about the sob story and say that's not an excuse for your actions and it deserves full punishment?0
That's why Psychiatric hospital's exist and yeah i agree they should exist.
There is a major difference with murdering someone for money compared to killing someone due to psychotic break which one couldn't control and if they could they would never of done it.0
It actually depends on the crime.
Like if someone has kleptomania, daily therapy and surveillance is enough with a certain fine obviously.
Homicidal mental health situations are already being dealt separately and that should be kept that way only i guess. They can just improve those facilities.0
I tell you what going on in Texas. The State shit down the state mental hospital. My son is schizophrenic. His meds are 19k a momth. Insurance is stop paying the high cost. So they get off meds. Familes can't handle them. They go to the streets snd screw up then off to jail them off to state jail. They are getting lock up41
no. did you know there is no objective way to diagnose a mental disorder? give 1 patient to 50 different clinical "experts" and they will come up with 50 different diagnosis
anyone can claim to have a mental disorder, you are still responsible for your actions2
The real issue is we need to identify and treat people who are suffering from mental illness before they commit a serious crime.
The danger is that Big Daddy government has brutally stigmatized mental illness with things like "red flag laws" and involuntary commitments. If you have ever had a mental health issue where the government was involved it will follow you for the rest of your life and quite literally curtail your civil liberties.11
Less severe? I don’t know about that, but I do think that the mental health issues should be dealt with. Better mental health services could help prevent some of these crimes in the first place.
Throwing them in jail isn’t always the answer.40
It might be a reason, but it's not an excuse.
I feel like they should, but that also leaves the system open to abuse.
I'm going to have to go with yes though. Of course that is going to depend a lot on the crime.0
No, if they have mental illness they should be in an institution, not living among the public. If their illness is controlled by meds they should always be in the presence of a handler to control them.0
No they are still accountable for there actions if its that bad that there illness played a part then they she be instituted to be safe2
Yeah if it is a real illness, not a minor personality disorder. I am an Aspie myself and we deserve no special treatment for we are capable of functioning we have Bill Gates and Sir Isaac Newton among our number.0
If they can no longer discern between good and evil, they should be committed to a mental institution. The end of that commitment depends on whether the person gets better, which can last longer than the jail term they would have received.0
Id think that would depend entirely upon the severity of their mental illness.10
If you have a psychopath, who doesn't feel worry, pity or remorse but pleasure in torture and killing, do you think he deserves a less harsh punishmemt? No I'd even say, a more severe punishment10
In my opinion, overall, no their punishment should, in most cases, be the same.0
If that's the case, I'll committe a crime then I'll act as I habe am mental illness.0
No, they should get the same but the focus should include treatment as well.0
A lot of these answers are coming from an ignorant view because they've never had to deal with a mental illness so severe that the life around them is collapsing. Most people only understand depression because almost everybody experiences a bit of manageable depression caused by life circumstances.
I, however, have Schizophrenia and am neurodivergent, so I am able to answer this question a lot more accurately. Schizophrenia, which is one of the most severe mental illnesses, warps your mind so completely that you sometimes are totally unaware of your actions. This is why if someone with full blown unmanaged Schizophrenia commits a crime in a state of absolute psychoses, causing them to not know from right nor wrong, they are punished less severely. It would be inhumane to put them on the same standard as someone who is neurotypical. They're completely different people.
Fortunately, my Schizophrenia is no longer at that point and I've only had one psychotics break. When I had that psychotic break, almost 9 years ago, I felt like I wasn't even in my body anymore and I felt like I wasn't in control.
So, yes, people who have something like Schizophrenia, who commit a crime in a state of psychoses, should get a sentence less severe.
Oh my god. My sister told me about the "neurodivergent" trendo. First time I see someone use the word.
1. Why because of your mental illness, you assume you are more qualified?
2. Is it not possible for someobe with a history of mental illness or in contact with mentally ill people to agree with some of the responses here?
3. Don't you think the people you described in full blown episodes are a danger to people around them? Should they not be - if not imprisoned - at least in an institution? Actually, whicj type of institution: prison or psychiatric hospital?
4. What punishment or treatment do you think would be better suited for them (the type you described)?
1. Because I've experienced it first hand and lived in an institution for almost 2 years where I was around people who were dangerous, criminally insane, and others completely harmless. Due to the nature of my psychotic episode, I was sent to a facility where people were committed for life.
2. Yes, and I agree with many of the responses. But I don't agree with those that outright say they should be sent to prison just like a neurotypical person without understanding the situation.
3. Psychiatric hospitals are the best places for them. And in many countries, if charged with a crime, they get sent to a hospital for an assessment to see whether or not they need medical help or to figure out if they were aware of their crimes.
4. It all depends on the severity of the crime and depending on whether or not they were aware of their actions. If they had a psychotic episode and weren't aware of what they did, they need to be assessed in a psychiatric facility. If they were aware of their crimes they can do a small amount of time in a prison that can handle the mentally ill. a
1. First hand experience isn't the same as knowing the ins and outs of the law, application of the law or its impact on society at large. If i got into a car accident, it would be first hand experience but wouldn't give me the knowledge in the mechanics of a car and how to make them safer.
2. Fair enough and I agree with that. It wouldn't be safe for anyone. Either the mentally ill or those around them. What are your thoughts on psychiatric wings in jail/prison?
3. Oki dok. When thinking about punishment is it the length that makes it harsher? How do you determine how long to keep someone in a hospital?
4. Let's say during an episode, someone got killed. They weren't aware of their actions. Their mental illness can be treated and managed. Do you think they should only be held in a hospital? If managed to the point of functioning, should they stay in the hospital or do you think the case can be made that they should be transferred to a prison?
1. Due to my experiences, I am studying criminal psychology so I will be getting that knowledge. I've interviewed the mentally ill who are in prisons, I've helped lawyers on cases. Plus, car accidents and actually living with a mental illness and being in the system are not the same thing. My experience actually gives me an upper hand.
2. They're better than going in General Population
3. They stay in the hospital till they can prove they're no longer a threat to society. My stay was 2 years. I had to prove myself to be able to get out. When I had a relapse they sent me right back in and I had to prove myself once again.
4. From what I've seen, when someone is killed, those mentally ill persons rarely ever get out. There's a special criminal unit in the hospital for them that is like a prison but they get the mental health help they require which wouldn't be possible in a general prison. They'd have to make an extraordinary case to be able to get released. I met a man who was in such a situation. He was in that hospital for 20 years and is still there.
1. There's something bugging me about that answer. But i can't put my finger on it.
2. Thank you
3. So if sentenced it's an indeterminate amount of time? That's rough! But understandable.
4. What do you think about that? The fact that they rarely ever get out.
3. Yes, unfortunately, it's almost always an unspecified amount of time. While I was in hospital, I had no idea when I was getting out till they told me the night before. They don't tell you how long your stay is, especially in criminal cases. You go before a review board every month to check on your progress in criminal cases. So, every month you go to the review and, if satisfied, they can give you a release order. Otherwise, you stay there.
4. If they're dangerous enough, then I guess, for the sake of society, it's the best. If they're not dangerous, I think the review board process is good for them. I've known of a few cases where they were eventually released and are now living a fulfilling life and have never reoffended. If reoffence is high, they should stay as long as needed.
Thank you so much! That was really interesting.
@Nomina No problem!