Criminology

In order to understand the correlation between mental illness and crime, one must first carefully examine mental illness and the subject matter contained therein.  Psychologists and psychiatrists have debated over a clear and concise definition for mental illness.  Another widely used term is mental disorder, but assuredly, the two are not the same (Mercado, Jay,  Bornstein, 2006).  Mental illness is a legalized term that expresses the absence of ones sanity, but it does not denote a medical reason.  Mental illness has taken on the role of a social concept by which some believe is the cause for social deviance.  The realm of mental function is distinctly incapacitated through mental illness. The term mental disorder is a psychological term used frequently to reference topics of neurotic behavior, psychopaths, emotional disorders of the mind, and psychosis (Bolton, 2008).  Mental disorders are scaled as a social value with verifiable medical fact proportionate to the problem.
   
The psychological community relies on a publication called the Diagnostic and Statistics Manual for diagnosing and treating patients with mental disorders.  This publication is revised periodically, but is the standard form for clinical diagnostics (France  Kramer, 2001).  Patients generally meet with an attending psychiatrist for a psychological assessment to determine if a disorder is present.  Upon gathering all the information necessary to make an informed diagnosis, the clinician assesses each tests results to incorporate into the Axis of Diagnosis.  The Axis of diagnosis is a five point scale used to explain the mental issues included within an individuals psychological profile
   
The fact that a mentally ill person committed a crime should not be a main focal point, but the real concern should be that a mental disorder caused an individual to commit a crime.  The United States Department of Justice (USDJ) reported in June 2007 there being 1,518,559 individuals incarcerated in prison and 785,556 inmates in state facilities (Sabol, 2008).  Of these incarcerated persons, it is estimated that 44.3 were mentally ill males, 44 mentally ill females, and 27 mentally ill juveniles under the age of eighteen (Ditton, 1999).  Mentally ill patrons are 53 more likely to be sentenced to prison or jail than a non-mentally ill individual (Ditton, 1999).  The USDJ has termed the phrase mentally ill to include the clinical diagnoses of bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, and schizophrenia.  Although not cited by the USDJ, there are several other mental disorders that are directly connected with crime and the committal thereof.  Borderline personality disorder, post-partum psychosis, paranoid personality disorder, antisocial personality disorder, and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).  Each of these conditions has symptoms and key features that incite the criminal misconduct of those on whom it inflicts.
   
Post partum psychosis has been known to cause mothers to murder their own children.  It requires immediate hospitalization for stabilization, medications, and therapy.  Paranoid personality disorder is noted to include feelings of paranoia and jealousy.  Antisocial personality disorder comes with a vast list of issues including disregard for any rule of social behavior, impulsivity, irresponsibility, legal issues, aggressiveness, violence, and no remorse for any action inflicted onto another (Baker, Bezdjian,  Raine, 2006).  Borderline personality disorder is a step above the antisocial personality disorder.  It is distinguished by unreasonable demands, no remorse, attention seeking, provocative behavior, self-mutilation, mood swings, delusions, reckless criminal behavior, and psychosis. Since the disastrous events of 911, there has been more publicity given to a mental disorder known as post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).  Over eight million American adults suffer from PTSD (MHA, 2010).  It is not of a genetic or biological origin, but rather it is established through life threatening situational experiences.  Soldiers returning from combat, rape survivors, adults who were victims of child abuse and neglect, and victims of terrorist attacks are all finding problems with PTSD.
   
The number of crimes being committed by those determined to be mentally ill vary in severity and nature.  Violent offenses, property crimes, public order offenses, and weapons charges make up the variant.  Violent offenses were committed in 2007 by mentally ill individuals 31 of the time, while non-mentally ill offenders were noted to be at 13.3 (Ditton, 2007).  Of the violent offenses which include murder, sexual assault, robbery, and assault, the crime of robbery was committed by mentally ill individuals in 20 of the cases, while non-mentally ill individuals were responsible for 10 of the offenses (Sabol, 2008).  Property crimes of burglary, larceny, and fraud were committed in 9 of the cases by mentally ill persons and 6.7 were committed by non-mentally ill individuals.  Public order offenses were committed by mentally ill individuals in 17 of the cases and 14.6 of the cases were at the hands of non-mentally ill persons (Sabol, 2008).  The legal ramifications put forth for criminal offenders have only recently been curtailed to include specifications relevant to the mentally ill individual.
   
The courts use remedial provisions to evaluate an offender for trial.  The United States Supreme Court ruled that the lower courts were bound to take a full psychological assessment of offenders in order to determine their ability to stand trial. In 2002, the case of Atkins vs. Virginia set a precedent concerning the legal execution of people diagnosed with mental illness or mental retardation.  It has been established that 32 of all inmates on death row have a mental disorder or mental retardation (Perlin  McClatin, 2009).  In order to go forward with trying an individual suspected of any mental defect, the court must perform a psychological assessment, take a mental health history, and investigate for neurological impairments.  Predisposing reasons are also included with regard to IQ, learning disabilities, ADHD, criminal modeling from childhood, familial history of mental illness, and possible abuse and neglect (Perlin  McClain, 2009).  The courts have approved four tests for evaluation of an individual for psychological findings.  These tests are the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-MMPI-2, the MacArthur Competency Assessment Tool for criminal adjudication-MacCAT-CA, the Halsted Reitan Neuropsychological Battery, and the Test of Verbal Conceptualization and Fluency-IVCF (Perlin  McClain, 2009).  Through the incorporation of these testing procedures, a mentally ill individual is guaranteed a competent forensic evaluation, the right to a fair trial, and if determined, a fair penalty phase.
   
The legal community and the mental health sector have conjoined together in a conscious effort to combat the rising number of mentally ill offenders in local jails, state prisons, and federal institutions.  Mental illness and criminal behavior give birth to felonies and misdemeanors through impulsivity (Palermo, Gumz,  Liska, 1992).  State legislatures from some localities have undertaken the project of working with area mental health workers in order to construct an autonomous mental health court system.  The new court would focus on responding to the needs of mentally ill individuals who have fallen into the legal system by way of their illness. Admission into the court system would be limited as so adequate supervision and monitoring could be ensured for the offenders safety and that of the community (United States Department of Justice, 2010).  The mental state of individuals has admittedly misled some jurors by their own admissions (Mercado, Jay,  Bornstein, 2006).  It is also a viable option for reducing the recidivism rates of mentally ill offenders who ironically are responsible for 53 of recidivism (Ditton, 1999).  The mental health court would give hope to the mentally ill by offering an alternative.  The prognosis for mentally ill offenders would improve as cognitive therapy, psychodynamic psychotherapy, medication regimens, and individual support systems could be more easily applied
   
There has long been a connection between the mentally ill and the committing of crimes.  The two are interwoven and feed off one another.  Mental illness is not brought on by choice.  When an individual suffers from a mental disorder, they often feel victimized by their own brain dysfunction and inability to overcome the problems.  When the same mentally ill individual enters into the legal arena, they are left feeling emotionally violated, exposed, and shameful for whom they are.  The direct connection between crime and mental illness deserves judicial redress.  If ones thinking is not rational, then how can the individual be responsible on a criminal level for an unconscious undertaking of events  The answer is simple.  They cannot be held responsible.  In the age of new understanding, now is the time to thrust forward and insight changes for the betterment of everyone.  .