Punishing the Mentally Ill

Molly Allender

             

                  The use of the insanity defense has be a controversial topic throughout American history. From Hinckley to more recent cases like Andrea Yates, there is usually a public outcry against the insanity defense (Newsweek 56). Although the plea is not used often, it has earned notoriety due to the association with unusual and famous cases. This led to alternative, more conservative forms of the insanity plea, including the conviction of “guilty but mentally ill” which states: the defendant is “mentally ill, but whose illness is not severe enough to relieve him of criminal responsibility” (PBS Frontline).  While this conviction was created with good intentions, it is a flawed system that does more harm than good, a critical concept that as an American voter the reader should realize. This ineffective charge is unethical and a harm to the mentally ill who have fallen into the US judicial system.

                After being used in several landmark criminal cases in US history, the insanity defense has been scorned as a “pass” for dangerous criminals. This view was probably justified in the 1970s when after new laws were passed and improved therapy was available many mental patients, including those who had used the insanity defense, were being released quickly (Newsweek 56). In one 1970s study, “124 of 223 criminally insane defendants were released after a 60 day hospital stay” (Newsweek 56). Ultimately this resulted in a few but notable repeat offenders, sparking public outcry and legal changes. Currently in some states, a criminally insane patient must have a judge’s approval before being released causing the average hospital stay to equal or exceed time spent in prison by a criminal charged with the same offense (Melville, and Naimark 553-554). Even now with these changes, many in the public have maintained their negative feelings about the insanity defense (Newsweek 56). New laws have been passed to appease the public’s views of the insanity defense, for example: three states have gotten rid of the insanity defense all together, and twenty states have started using the moderate conviction of “guilty but mentally ill” (PBS Frontline). With the exception of Alaska, most states don’t define what qualifies a defendant to be mentally ill, but still having the ability to differentiate between right and wrong (Melville, and Naimark 553-554). If the jury gives a verdict of “guilty but mentally ill”, the defendant is then sentenced the same as if he/she was found guilty however, in theory, the defendant will be sent to a mental hospital to be treated for their mental illness (Melville, and Naimark 553-554). Once the defendant’s doctors deem the patient “cured” he/she will be sent to a prison for the remainder of their sentenced time (Melville, and Naimark 553-554).

                Proponents of the verdict “guilty but mentally ill” are typically against the insanity defense and argue this sentence brings justice. Supporters, such as assistant District Attorney in the Ralph Tortorici trial Cheryl Coleman, feel “guilty but mentally ill” is a good option over the “all-or-nothing” system of insanity or guilty and effectively deals with criminals who are mentally ill but at the time of their crime knew the difference between right and wrong (PBS Frontline).  While it is important to provide mental health treatment from criminals that need it, this doesn’t seem to be the goal in “guilty but mentally ill” verdicts. In fact, one study in Michigan, a state which has “guilty but mentally ill” as a possible verdict, found that 75% of those who were convicted as “GBMI” were given no treatment and sent straight to jail with no additional mental health resources (Newsweek 56). Furthermore, the remaining 25% of defendants found “guilty but mentally ill” were sent straight to prison and had a psychiatrist occasionally visit (Newsweek 56). Under the current law this is permissible because “most statutes grant substantial discretion to the facility directors to provide a level of treatment that they determine is necessary, there is no guarantee that an inmate will receive adequate treatment” (PBS Frontline). The main purpose of this alternative verdict is to provide criminals with needed psychiatric treatment. If this is not happening and the defendants are essential being treated the same as defendants deemed guilty why label the defendant as “mentally ill” or for that matter why even have “guilty but mentally ill” as a possible verdict. It seems this verdict is not helping the mentally ill who commit crimes, instead it’s a verdict to appease an ignorant public who reject the insanity plea.

                Defendants who are truly mentally ill don’t belong in prison, where employees and resources are ill equipped to handle their health needs. These individuals should be in mental hospital where they can be carefully monitored and treated for their condition. Both the American Psychiatric Association and Mental Health America are proponents of “the ongoing availability of the not guilty by reason of insanity plea…” and oppose “‘guilty but insane’ laws which preclude the use of the insanity defense” (Mental Health America). Its cases like Ralph Tortorici that demonstrate the mentally ill should be treated in mental hospitals. Tortorici had a history of mental ill before he held a college classroom hostage and ultimately shot one student (PBS Frontline). The prosecutor could not find a single psychiatrist to give testimony that Tortorici was not mentally ill yet a jury found him guilty of all charges against him (PBS Frontline). After a suicide attempt, Tortorici drifted back and forward between prison and a mental hospital (PBS Frontline). After a long stent at the hospital, he was placed in prison again, three weeks after returning he successfully committed suicide (PBS Frontline). Tortorici exemplifies the fatal shortcomings of sending the mentally ill to prison. While his case is different because he tried to use the insanity defense, as demonstrated above, a verdict of “guilty but mentally ill” is no different from his verdict of “guilty” (PBS Frontline). The verdict of “guilty but mentally ill” punishes the mentally ill not only by providing insufficient or no treatment, but also by creating more serve penalty such as “requiring treatment as a condition of parole” even though it is a “well-established fact that mentally ill offenders have less recidivism than mentally normal criminals” (Melville, and Naimark 553-554). While the initial costs of the criminally insane in state mental hospitals is more expensive for tax payers than the cost of inmates at a prison this is not always the case at regional or private hospitals (Cole). Furthermore, mentally ill criminals who are released after psychiatric treatment are far less likely to commit another crime than criminals who are released from prison (Cole). It seems sending the mentally ill to hospitals to receive treatment would be more beneficial for the tax payer long term.

                A fundamental misunderstanding of the mentally ill who commit crime and an imperfect system in the 1970s has created a general distrust of the genuine need for the insanity plea and spurred the creation of “guilty but mentally ill” as a verdict. Designed to protect communities from an imaginary danger, this verdict discriminates against and punishes the mentally ill without regard for their well-being. Although the insanity plea is not without flaws it is an effective and fair system that gives power to psychiatrist rather than a fearful and uninformed jury.

               

               

Works Cited

Cole, Michelle. "Insanity Defense Comes at a High Cost to Taxpayers." Oregonian. 16 Feb 2011: n. page. Web. 27 Nov. 2011. <http://www.legalnews.com/macomb/1004859>.

“A Crime of Insanity.” PBS Frontline. PBS Frontline, 2011. Web. 12 Nov 2011. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/ pages/frontline/shows/crime/trial/.      

“The Insanity Plea on Trial.” Newsweek (1982): 56. LexisNexis. Web. 15 Nov 2011.http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/lnacui2apireults/docview/docview.do?docLikInd=true&risb=21_T13263290011&frat=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey29_T132632852&cisb=22_T13263290013&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&selRCNodeID=2odeSteId=411en_US,1&docsInCategory=4&csi=5774&docNo=4>.

Melville, John, and David Naimark. “Punishing the Insane: the Verdict of “Guilty but Mentally Ill”. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the La. 30. (2002): 553-554. Web. 12 Nov 2011. http://www.jaal.org/content/30/4/553.full.pdf.

"Position Statement 57: In Support of the Insanity Defense." Mental Health America. Mental Health America, 13 Jun 2009. Web. 21 Nov 2011. <http://www.nmha.org/go/position-statements/57>.