Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Recently, there has been a growing concern about how the criminal justice system deals with mentally ill offenders. In some cases, individuals with mental illness are not receiving the appropriate treatment and are instead incarcerated. This has led to a call for more prosecutorial discretion and the implementation of diversion programs, particularly mental health courts. This paper will examine the use of prosecutorial discretion for the mentally ill, the role of victims in the decision-making process, the need for guidelines for prosecutors, and the use of diversion and special mental health courts.
The contentious issue of prosecutorial discretion hinges on a prosecutor’s unbridled authority to press or abandon charges against an individual, with much debate surrounding its application to mentally ill offenders. This vexing matter has led to a gamut of arguments both for and against its employment. On the one hand, it is contended that prosecutors should be endowed with unfettered discretion to consider the circumstances surrounding the mentally ill offender and appraise whether prosecution is an apt course of action (Pollock, 2021). On the other hand, proponents of a more balanced approach contend that those who fall prey to crimes committed by mentally ill perpetrators should be granted a modicum of influence in the decision-making process.
When it comes to the criminal justice system, treating mentally ill offenders is a contentious and multifaceted issue that demands consideration from all angles. While the victims of crimes perpetrated by individuals with mental illness warrant sympathy and sensitivity, it is essential to recognize that mental illness is not a matter of choice; it is an affliction beyond an individual’s control that impacts their cognitive and emotional states (Pollock, 2021). As such, it is vital to account for the offender’s mental state when making prosecution decisions, as harsh punishment may exacerbate underlying mental health issues rather than address them.
Nonetheless, it is also critical to balance the offender’s needs with those of the victim and society at large. However, prosecutors must not make such decisions arbitrarily but instead follow clear and consistent guidelines that consider the unique circumstances of mentally ill offenders (Carter, 2023). These guidelines should ensure that offenders receive the proper treatment and support to avoid future criminal behavior while still holding them accountable for their actions.
Diversion programs and special mental health courts can effectively ensure that mentally ill offenders receive appropriate treatment and support. It is essential to hold mentally ill individuals accountable for their actions. However, punishment alone may not be the most effective way to address the underlying mental health issues contributing to their criminal behavior. Treatment and rehabilitation should be a priority, and criminal prosecution should be seen as a last resort rather than the first step in a mentally ill person’s mandated treatment (Carter, 2023). Ultimately, the goal should be to balance the needs of the offender, the victim, and society and provide mentally ill offenders with the support they need to overcome their mental health issues and avoid future criminal behavior.
As exemplified by the case of Pete Earley’s son Mike, prosecutorial discretion and diversion can provide a viable solution to the complex issue of mentally ill offenders. Mike had a mental illness when he committed his crimes, and his actions resulted from his condition (Earley, 2007). Although the victims of Mike’s crimes should be considered, it is essential to remember that Mike was not in control of his actions. Rather than incarcerating him, diversion programs and treatment are more appropriate for Mike (Earley, 2007). They can address the root cause of his criminal behavior and provide him with the necessary support to overcome his mental health issues.
In conclusion, the intricate and multifaceted issue concerning the incarceration of mentally ill offenders within the criminal justice system has long been a heated debate. Although the discretion of prosecutors in determining whether or not to press charges against such individuals is a crucial aspect to consider, it is of utmost importance that transparent guidelines are put in place to ensure that decisions are made in a manner that is both just and equitable.
References
Carter, E. C. (2023). Criminal law and procedure for the paralegal. Aspen Publishing.
Earley, P. (2007). Crazy: a father’s search through America’s mental health madness. Berkley Books.
Pollock, J. M. (2021). Ethical dilemmas and decisions in criminal justice. Cengage Learning.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.