4/1/2023 0 Comments Insanity time for changeHowever, Sheehan J in People (DPP) v WB noted that there is a huge discrepancy in the protection afforded to patients under two acts. The link, which many prisoners or patients in mental hospitals find so difficult to re-establish on release.ĭespite the fact that the Mental Health Act 2001 regulates civil commitments and the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006 deals with criminal detainments, two statutes are in pari material. It also, in cases of out-patient treatments, provides for a necessary link with society. Its diversity of methods allows each patient to be treated differently and in his or her best interests. Should the situation improves, a good example of the variety of in-patient and outpatient treatments in Russia can be considered. However, due to the lack of funding for existing facilities in prisons, the only designated centre in operation at present is the Central Mental Hospital. As originally drafted, its intent was to include prisons as a designated centre to cater for somebody with maximum security needs like Hannibal Lecter. The plural form used in the legislation raises questions as to its meaning. The court can only decide whether the accused needs in-patient care or not in the designated centers. In People (DPP) v WB, 35 Sheehan J noted that the Act places a significant limitation on the judiciary’s discretion as to the type of treatment that a person might be afforded. Considering the history of indefinite incarceration in Irish institutions, 34 the burden of proof, which rests on the accused in respect of insanity, it can be argued that the indefinite detention in the hospital contrasted with the definite prison term may be a crucial factor in the decision of raising the defence of insanity. Furthermore, the legislation is silent of the maximum period of hospitalization. While removing an automatic hospitalization, the Act does not specifically state this, but it is implicit in the wording of Sections 5(2) and (3). If it is determined that detention is required, the accused will be hospitalized for such a time until the Mental Health (Criminal Law) Board deems him fit for the release. Should the accused be allowed to refrain from taking medications before the trial so as to present him or her in the same condition as at the time of the crime, the court is more likely to declare that the person is unfit to be tried. Such detention can be problematic and contrary to the Article 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights as discussed in Winterwerp v The Netherlands, 33 which emphasized that a detention must be based on objective medical testimony and not on the court’s own view and legal standards.ĭue to considerable delays in the trials, there can also be a situation where the accused committed the crime while having mental illness, but he or she no longer suffers from it at the time of the trial. The courts now have two options: a full acquittal or detention for up to 14 days to assess whether there is a need for hospitalization. It did not happen in practice and to present days, the defence is rarely used. It was thought that the abolition of automatic hospitalization would allow people with mental illnesses to have a choice of adequate defenses. This reform was initially viewed as positive, since in the past even those who might otherwise plea the insanity, chose not to do so due to the fear of indefinite hospitalization. The outcome of the successful plea raised under Section 5 is a special verdict of “not guilty by reason of insanity.” The 2006 Act removes automatic hospitalization which existed under the common law. It can be argued that by placing too much reliance on the testimony, it will diminish the role of the jury and may result in psychologisation of criminal liability, while the exclusion of the same may result in uninformed judgment. However, the lack of complete reliance on such evidence can be justified. ![]() ![]() This may lead to the situation like in cases of epilepsy, where some people may be declared legally insane, but not medically and vice versa, like in cases of personality disorders, where those who may need a medical treatment are not identified. ![]() The psychiatrists are restrained by the legal definition of the mental disorder in their testimony. ![]() 31 The lack of collaboration between two disciplines makes the task of the testimony problematic. 30 The decision ultimately rests with the jury and the reverse burden of proof in the case of insanity is controversial. The new further requirement of raising the defence of insanity is the expert witness testimony, which merely assists the court in providing an opinion.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |