What are guilty but mentally ill statutes? Why do many legal scholars oppose them?
What will be an ideal response?
These statutes offer the court a middle ground for mentally ill defendants. The goal is to hold the defendant blameworthy but recognize the presence of a mental disorder. The statutes were intended to reduce the number of insanity acquittals but also provide treatment for individuals found guilty but mentally ill. Research has shown that these defendants actually receive longer sentences than defendants without mental disorder. In many states, these defendants are not more likely to receive mental health treatment.
You might also like to view...
All of the following are considered conditions in which a person must intervene EXCEPT ______.
a. status b. contract c. statute d. morals
What is the fleeing-felon rule?
What will be an ideal response?
Programs that focus on improving the general well-being of individuals through such measures as access to health care services and general prevention education are considered
a. primary prevention c. tertiary prevention b. secondary prevention d. delinquency repression
Two men recognized as developing the concept of indeterminate sentencing, conditional release, preparing offenders for release, and transitioning to lower classes of classification were which of following?
a. Alexander Maconochie and Sir Walter Crofton b. John Locke and David Hume c. John Howard and Austin Wilkes d. Sanford Bates and John Augustus