Mental Illness Disease At The Time example essay topic

The insanity defence was bought into action in 1843 to protect those suffering from a mental illness / disease at the time of committing a crime, however society's growing indignant attitude towards these offenders is both destructive and detrimental to the reputation of the Queensland Legal System. The insanity defence is misconstrued by the general public, and viewed as a weak argument-an easy way to get "off" criminal charges, this is not so. Section 27 of the Queensland Criminal Code 1899 (see appendix) clearly states that an offender is not criminally responsible for his / her acts if at the time they were lacking capacity to understand due to mental illness. Although how is the contrary proven? Without specific guidelines stating what is / isn 't a mental illness, without psychological and legal forces joining together to create a comprehensive addition to the current code, the insanity defence remains a grey area for all involved. Therefore the lack of uniformity leaves it open for exploitation and misuse, this view often represented by the media and thus by the general public, who in turn sit on the jury and decide the fate of mentally ill offenders.

The Queensland Legal System needs to standardise S 26/27 of the criminal code act regarding what is and isn't a mental illness and should consequently be covered by the code, before any more damage is done to the reputation of this very important and necessary contention. Is the insanity defence being abused in the Queensland Legal System? The insanity defence was first utilized R vs. M'Naughten (1843, England). Daniel M'Naughten suffered paranoia and believe the Prime Minister at the time was part of a plot to persecute and kill him. M'Naughten then killed the Prime Ministers secretary, believing it to be him, and pleaded insanity at the trial. At the trial it was said, "he knew he was killing, but did not appreciate the nature of his act".

The M'Naughten rule was subsequently introduced and remains so, even today in Australian jurisdictions (with minor amendments). "it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know, that he did not know that was he was doing was wrong" (Ten C. L, Crime Guilt and Punishment, 1990 pg 3) It seems ridiculous that a code formed 163 years ago is still being drawn upon in today's ever changing society. With the emergence of several medical and psychological breakthroughs regarding forensic / criminal psychology, the Queensland legal system is still using a rule formed when there was no access to diagnostic equipment and expert medical opinions, no previous precedents or access to statical data. This places a mentally ill defendant at a disadvantage from the start, having to prove their case without great importance being placed on various medical analytical equipment at their disposal. Rather than undertaking a series of psychological testing, the defence has to try to prove to the judge / jury that their client is in fact mentally ill based on a 163 year old ruling.

Of course psychologists are consulted, and some testing may be done, but very little significance is placed on these outcomes rather it comes back to the M'Naughten ruling on whether or not the defendant was unaware of the act he was committing at the time. It is a great public misconception that the insanity defence is used regularly to "get off' lightly and obscure the Queensland Legal System. Wallace (1986) examined the prevalence of mental disorders among homicide offenders in NSW between 1976 and 1990 and found that in a fourteen year period only 2.8% of offenders in the study were found not guilty by reasons of insanity, although at least 16% of offenders were known to have some kind of mental disorder at the time. (Wallace 1986, pg 3 Australian Institute of Criminology report no. 133) In fact insanity is extremely difficult to prove, as insanity is not a psychological term at all, it is solely used in the legal system and had virtually no medical groundings. There are no straightforward steps a psychologist can use to determine whether or not a patient is of sound mind when presenting a case in the Queensland Legal System under the code. In previous cases, insanity defences have been based on the accused suffering from a variety of psychological disorders including paranoid schizophrenia, anxiety disorders and selected personality disorders.

Without stipulations in S 26/27 of the Queensland Criminal Code Act, there is too much room for the judge / jury to make their own interpretations regarding the accused mental state at the time, these people having no / little medical background. The code neglects to stipulate what insanity is defined as, what mental illness's are considered and recognised by this act and what steps should be embarked on when proving the divergent view. There is too much room for personal views and a severe lack of consistency between precedents. In R vs. Wilson [1997] QCA 244 (12 August 1997) The accused was on trial appealing a murder sentence.

The defendant was a unbalanced man who abused not only the judge / jury in his original trial, but also hurled abuse at his lawyers and threatened to kill them. Mr Wilson had a history of depression for some years and spent 2 weeks in the Rosemount Psychiatric Hospital in 1994, and had been followed up there every 2-3 weeks since notably suffering from abnormal personality disorder with some evidence of brain damage. In the middle of his original trial, Mr Wilson was medically examined and the trial was stopped as the appellant's medical condition was referred to the Mental Health Tribunal, which deemed him fit to stand trial. He was then convicted of murder.

At the appeal a psychologist found that he was not labouring under such a defect at the time, to not know the nature of his act. The appeal was dismissed. This defendant had a past history of mental illness, yet the jury deemed him of responsible for his act as he was aware of ramifications of his actions at the time. He was suffering severe depression with evidence of brain damage and a clinical diagnosis of abnormal personality disorder yet they declared him of sound mind. Without guidelines to the code stating what is / isn 't a mental illness and what should be covered, offenders such as Wilson are slipping through the cracks of our judicial "black hole". It is not only the Queensland Criminal Code act which falls short on guiding principle regarding mental illness and mentally ill offenders.

The following is a case from the Supreme Court of Tasmania: R vs. Bryant (1996) the accused Martin Bryant was on trial for the murder of 35 people, and attempted murder of 20 people in a frenzied attack on April 28 1996 at Port Arthur. Bryant pleaded insanity at his trial and the court had to determine whether or not Bryant was in fact legally insane and therefore according to the M'Naughten rule, not guilty by reason of insanity (NGR I). In Martin Bryant's case it was found, although his IQ was borderline on the intellectually disabled range, he however functioned reasonably well in the community and was found to have a clear notion of right from wrong. While he was found to have been suffering from a depressive illness for a substantial period of time, there was no evidence to suggest his depression involved manic episodes although Bi-Polar disease (previously known as manic depression) has contributed to few successful insanity defence cases, e.g. The Queen vs. Lars Bengt E skil Nilsson [2000] NZ CA 144 (27 July 2000). The chief psychologist's report also suggested that even though Bryant was clearly distressed and disturbed young man, he was not mentally ill.

He was tried as a being of sound mind at the time of the incident. It is time mental illness loses the disgrace, not only the Queensland legal system, and standardise the procedure for determining mental illness. It is important to address mens rea (guilty mind) when discussing mental illness. Did the defendant choose to do the wrong thing? , Did the defendant have free will? To act with mens rea is to act without legal excuse ( (Ten C. L, Crime Guilt and Punishment, 1990 pg 3) If you are legally sane, you therefore have free will and if you are not, you do not.

You do not act with mens rea. Proving the accused acted without mens rea is where most cases pleading insanity come undone. In a nine year survey conducted by the Australian Institute of Criminology National Homicide Monitoring Program (N HMP) a total of 2821 homicide incidents were recorded involving 3045 victims and 3314 offenders. The study found almost 9 in 10 homicides committed by mentally disorder offenders, there was no apparent motive, thus no mens rea. (Australian Institute of Criminology Report no. 133 pg. 4) By no means are offenders required to make these decisions affecting their cases on their own.

In conjunction with the Queensland Legal System The Mental Health Act 2000 commenced on 28 February 2002, and replaces the Mental Health Act 1974. The Act contains provisions for assessment, treatment, and patient rights. It provides mentally ill offenders help to understand criminal responsibility where the person has a mental illness or intellectual disability. Previous to the new act being initiated, mentally ill offenders had virtually no help in obtaining advice from medical professionals in regards to their case and ultimately their health.

The Mental Health Act provides for and protects the rights for mentally ill offenders. The reality is that mental disease is something the majority of the population does not understand, and is badly misrepresented by the media. The insanity defence is rarely raised, and even more rarely successful, although the media tends to portray the use of this defence as a regularly used "get out of jail free card". In fact, a successful attempt does not result in the defendant getting off scott-free, as they are almost always sentenced to time at a mental institute and may spend more time there than they would in prison. (David Brown, interview on ABC national, April 4 2002 ) The stigma attached to mental illness is something which is carried into the Queensland Legal System, and is detrimental to the accused in a jury trial. S. 26 of the Queensland Criminal Code act 1899 states: Every person is presumed to be of sound mind and to have been of sound mind at any time which comes into question until the contrary is proved.

But how is the contrary proved? Without specific regulations, it is almost impossible to convince a whole jury of this fact, as mental illness is essentially misunderstood and unfavourably acknowledged by the general public (who in turn sit on the jury at one stage or another). The insanity defence is not being abused by the Queensland legal system, rather poor attitudes in society towards a growing number of mental illness cases is proving to be more detrimental than beneficial... Society owes it to these offenders to protect them from themselves and others, we need to take responsibility for their welfare.

The Queensland Legal system needs to standardise the steps in determining mental illness before more damage is done to the reputation of this very valid justification.