Matching Items (2)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: psychology
Description
Realistically, everyone should either be in jail or in court for crimes that everybody
commits. Outside of the house, there are people speeding, jaywalking, littering, sharing
medication, and driving without seat belts. Inside the house, people are downloading
music/movies, drinking while underage, using (and abusing) social media while under the age of
18, and reading another person’s mail. With so much of a focus on serious crimes, or felonies,
people tend to forget about the everyday actions in America that are also illegal. For example, a
police officer may not do anything if several cars are going well over the speed limit on the
highway, because it is normalized. This paper explores two sides of this issue: the psychological
side and the legal side. The goal is to find out how culpable people really are for their actions
when they do not have the mental intent that the they are determined to have in court. All human
behavior will be divided into two sections (people with non-extreme mental disorders and people
who have total control over their behavior). First, I dive into the complexity of anxiety,
depression, and ADHD, and explain how these disorders will subtly change someone’s behavior.
Next, I examine how actions like speeding and jaywalking and explain how certain illegal
actions have become so normalized that people may not be very guilty, even when they are
knowingly committing these crimes. I use different misdemeanors as examples for each of these
types of behaviors to argue why people should be more culpable (aggravating factors) or less
culpable (mitigating factors) because of their respective predispositions. Finally, I discuss issues
of fixing the criminal justice system such as: how to make all punishments fair/accurate, how to
fix the public’s distrust towards the law, and how to stop these normalized illegal behaviors for
all people, regardless of mental health or intent.
commits. Outside of the house, there are people speeding, jaywalking, littering, sharing
medication, and driving without seat belts. Inside the house, people are downloading
music/movies, drinking while underage, using (and abusing) social media while under the age of
18, and reading another person’s mail. With so much of a focus on serious crimes, or felonies,
people tend to forget about the everyday actions in America that are also illegal. For example, a
police officer may not do anything if several cars are going well over the speed limit on the
highway, because it is normalized. This paper explores two sides of this issue: the psychological
side and the legal side. The goal is to find out how culpable people really are for their actions
when they do not have the mental intent that the they are determined to have in court. All human
behavior will be divided into two sections (people with non-extreme mental disorders and people
who have total control over their behavior). First, I dive into the complexity of anxiety,
depression, and ADHD, and explain how these disorders will subtly change someone’s behavior.
Next, I examine how actions like speeding and jaywalking and explain how certain illegal
actions have become so normalized that people may not be very guilty, even when they are
knowingly committing these crimes. I use different misdemeanors as examples for each of these
types of behaviors to argue why people should be more culpable (aggravating factors) or less
culpable (mitigating factors) because of their respective predispositions. Finally, I discuss issues
of fixing the criminal justice system such as: how to make all punishments fair/accurate, how to
fix the public’s distrust towards the law, and how to stop these normalized illegal behaviors for
all people, regardless of mental health or intent.
ContributorsHildebrand, David Abel (Author) / Rigoni, Adam (Thesis director) / Cavanaugh-Toft, Carolyn (Committee member) / School of Social Transformation (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2020-05
Description
In an attempt to fix the problem of an abundance of individuals with mental health issues in the criminal justice system, mental health courts have begun to develop as the newest form of problem-solving court. These courts aim to keep individuals with easily treatable mental health issues out of prison and connect them with the treatment that they need. This paper is a literature review examining the development and implementation of mental health courts across the United States. The paper first explains the essential elements to a mental health court and how they function. The main claim addressed is that: through the institution of statewide standards as well as the blanket adoption and regular measurement of national performance measures in each accredited mental health court, the large-scale and longitudinal study of mental health courts will become more practical. When these types of studies become more prevalent, the most effective practices of mental health courts will be identified and innovation will follow. The paper develops this claim by explaining the state and national regulations currently in place and the importance of standardization. It then moves into the national performance measures that should then be examined by courts once state standards are in place. The paper then explains the importance of longitudinal study to the proper collection of the significant data needed to solidify the institution of successful mental health courts. By identifying the most effective practices in mental health courts and standardizing them, this system will be able to: better help the individuals involved get appropriate treatment, promote public safety, and more effectively use taxpayer money.
ContributorsSanta Cruz, Ignacio Luis (Author) / Rigoni, Adam (Thesis director) / Kingsbury, Jeffrey (Committee member) / Department of Psychology (Contributor) / School of International Letters and Cultures (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2018-05