Based on your prior experience, Has mental illness and psychological soundness had a legitimate factor in sentencing?
Mental illness and psychological soundness is a factor in sentencing. Mental incapacity is treated differently in state and federal courts and each state applies different rules regarding mental incapacity claims. If the defense team can prove that the defendant couldn't fully understand their actions were illegal, couldn't think clearly, or couldn't control themselves during the time they committed the crime, the court may delay and/or reduce sentencing. Generally, defense teams must demonstrate evidence, such as medical and psychological evaluations, that show the defendant suffers from a mental condition. The judge may order the defendant to undergo further testing. In some cases, the defendant may be placed in a mental health facility for treatment and sentencing will continue when they have recovered. If they are unable to do so, they can be declared incompetent and could be ordered to long-term care and treatment.
Reflection: This surprised me, as it seems like much more care is taken than I originally thought and that some of my research would’ve led me to believe.
Is mental stability considered when a client is sentenced, or do judges tend to consider crime first and psychological requirements second?
Mental stability is considered when a client is sentenced, but the time devoted to disputing mental sanity varies from county to county. Most court personnel have limited knowledge on mental illness. Therefore, it is important for the defense team to inform and present accurate information and evidence regarding the defendant's mental incapacity. If the defense team can show that the defendant has serious medical needs, it can be a mitigating factor in the case and more time can be devoted to the matter.
Reflection:This wasn’t all that surprising to me, due to the facts that some of my research had turned up. It seems as though one of the main obstacles is actually accurately inform court personnel and jurors of the realities of mental illness in order to get a fairer sentence.
Have you been a part of a large amount of cases wherein the psychological state of a client has been a major factor in deciding sentencing?
Personally, I have not been involved in a large number of cases, but I have been involved in a particular case where the defendant was facing charges for felony murder. The defense team focused on the defendant's mental history. His previous and current relationships were evaluated for signs of abuse. His list of prescription medications, daily habits, and social and work environments were also analyzed for signs of misconduct and instability. The sentence was delayed for various months due to the gathering of evidence.
Reflection: I hadn't realized how much evidentiary support was necessary prove mental instability, yet it seems that courts are surprisingly accommodating (as they allow for time to gather evidence).
In your experience, do you believe that the mental stability of those on trial is properly looked into and utilized in order to decide sentencing?
From my experience on the defense team, at times I do believe mental stability is properly considered and other times I do not. Jurors have unique moral and ethical codes. They identify with distinct aspects of the case and generate their own opinion on the defendant. Not only is it our job to educate the jurors, but also the entire court personnel as accurately and as respectfully as possible so they can understand the severity of mental illness.
Reflection: This reinforces quite well what I had originally assumed, and reiterates that cases truly vary from court to court and are handled differently under different jurisdictions.
Have you noticed any particular recurring archetype in dealing with mental illness in clients? Is there anything that has stuck out to you about it?
Every case and individual is different, but based on my observations, mental health is molded from childhood. Most of our mentally ill clients have grown up in unstable homes have witnessed or experienced physical, emotional, and drug abuse. These habits usually roll into adulthood.
Reflection:This corroborated my prior research.
Studies have shown that severity of mental disorders in dimensions of; phobias, anxiety, somatic complaints, psychosis, depression, paranoid thoughts, aggression, obsession, compulsion and interpersonal sensitivity are far more prevalent in incarcerated violent criminals than in regular people. Can you corroborate this or do you disagree?
Based on my experience, I believe that many "regular people" deal with some type of mental disorder on a regular basis. Most people can cope with their disorders in a civil manner and avoid harming themselves and others by establishing a support system. Those who lack a support system and consideration for public safety, tend to be the ones who end up incarcerated. While incarcerated, their mental disorders can amplify if they cannot obtain proper help.
Reflection: This is a viewpoint I hadn't originally thought about, but it does provide logical reasoning and I do agree that incarceration can amplify preexisting instabilities in one’s psyche and therefore lead to more obviously mentally disturbed criminals.
Have you noticed that mental illness has actually benefitted a client during trial or the legal process?
If we are successful in educating the court that our client suffers from extreme mental illness, the sentence can be delayed and/or reduced. The most important thing, though, is that we can provide the help our clients need to recover or cope with their illness in a healthy manner.
Reflection: I agree that the priority in all cases should be first rehabilitating the emotional state of a client if necessary.
Do you think that fraudulent cases of psychological issues used to reduce time have affected how willing judges are to accept and work around legitimate mental illnesses?
Absolutely. Fraudulent cases deprive credibility for cases that involve real psychological issues. Individuals who are fully competent could start to change their conduct in such a way that the public mistakenly identifies them as mentally incapable. It would be very difficult to determine whether this behavior is honest or an act to delay their court case. This also leads to various social issues, such as psychiatrists improperly diagnosing patients to obtain reimbursements.
Reflection:This effectively confirms my assumptions and research; that mental illnesses seem to be losing a shred of credibility due to fraudulent cases.
Is there anything that you would like to change about how the justice system comprehensively accounts for mental illnesses?
I would like our justice system to evaluate every claim equally, despite race or social status.
Reflection: I agree with this and I think that the fact that the justice system doesn't already always operate in this way is a major quandary.
Do you see any possible improvement about insanity pleas, etc. in the foreseeable future and how it may affect sentencing?
Unfortunately, as long as "mentally ill" individuals continue to commit serious crimes that attract the media, they will continue to try and achieve an insanity plea through the justice system. Improvements on this issue do not begin in the courtroom. Instead, they begin with improving social values and establishing mental health programs to promote awareness in our educational system for all grade levels.
Reflection: I feel as though this would be a beneficial change.