It can be imagined that those who find themselves in the criminal justice system are faced with all sorts of emotions like stress, fear, and confusion. Now envision suffering from severe mental illness and being placed in the justice system facing serious punishment, unaware the severity of your crime or that it was even illegal. To avoid this emotional strain lawyers and psychologists work tirelessly to ensure those who are mentally ill and in the justice system receive fair sentencing, treatment, and release. Pleas like not guilty by reason of insanity, or NGRI, are introduced to the court system, and programs like conditional release are used to reintegrate these ex-convicts to society. For some these programs seem like a recipe for failure and recommitted crimes but with the right requirements, treatments, and research the mentally ill can be tried, punished, and released safe and fairly. 

Beginning in the 1950s America began the process of deinstitutionalization meaning, “replacing long-stay psychiatric hospitals with less isolated community mental health services for those diagnosed with a mental disorder or developmental disability.” (Wikipedia). The result of this was the start of a wave of mentally ill in the criminal justice system. The number of beds available in psychiatric hospitals were declining along with the mental state of the patients released prematurely. The mentally ill’s state of mind were beginning to deteriorate and everyday tasks were becoming impossible. Being an upholding, law abiding citizen was out of the question for most, “The mentally ill, therefore, began to resemble many criminals: poor, young, and estranged from the community…” (The Effects of Serious Mental Illness on Offender Reentry, 2).  Because the only places qualified in the treatment of the mentally sick were rapidly becoming scarce the ill found themselves in and out of jail frequently, resulting in jails and prisons being at full capacity full time. Correctional officers were too overworked and underqualified to deal with the special needs of someone who suffers from a mental illness. The treatment at the hands of these officers became inhumane and would occasionally lead to death of the mentally ill prisoner. As the mistreatment of the mentally unstable in prison gained more attention lawyers began to lean towards using the NGRI plea more often when defending their mentally ill client. Pleading not guilty by reason of insanity would send the ill to a state mental institution where they would serve their time while receiving proper treatment.  Pleading not guilty by reason of insanity is legally defined as a “plea in court of a person charged with a crime who admits the criminal act, but whose attorney claims he/she was so mentally disturbed at the time of the crime that he/she lacked the capacity to have intended to commit a crime.” (Not Guilty). Those who are proven, by court appointed psychologists, not understanding of their actions and consequences after committing a crime need serious professional help that could not be provided if sent to a prison. 

The public is understandably weary of this plea. Society doesn’t want criminals to use this plea as a get out of jail card nor do they want to see the reoccurrences of previously committed violent crimes by these newly released patients/prisoners. To protect against this, state governments “…either eliminated not guilty by reason of insanity or replaced it with ‘guilty because of mental illness.’ Individuals found guilty because of mental illness go to a hospital until their sanity is restored and then to jail to finish out their sentence. This forces individuals who had no culpability for their actions to go to jail at the exact time it’s not needed—when they’ve regained their sanity. For these individuals being mentally ill is the same as being guilty: either way, they go to jail.” (Our Legal System Still Does a Terrible Job of Handling the Mentally Ill). This is not necessary. It is detrimental to the mentally ill’s newfound sanity and for the jail system as a whole. The patients at these secure psychiatric hospitals undergo long and intensive therapy to find the root of their mental instability all while receiving the proper medicines. After the long grueling road of recovery is completed and the patient has found a way to live with their illness under control it is important they start to live a normal life, not go to jail to spend more time locked away. If this becomes the case it is only a matter of time for the newly locked away prisoners to back slide into a previous unstable state of mind. This would just continue the cycle of inhumane treatment and clogged jails. 

The offenders, by following the route of the NGRI argument, are admitting guilt meaning, whichever way the jury and judge decide on charges, they will be punished for their unlawful actions. Those who win their conviction of NGRI are sent to a secure state psychiatric institution until deemed no longer dangerous or mentally ill. Most spend longer here than they would if they had just pled guilty and served time in a regular prison, while others are almost always held indefinitely in the institution. Prison is not a walk in the park even for those without disabilities, and it is especially heinous for those who need extra care, meaning NGRI should be argued more often to send the sick to the proper facilities. Using this defense in more cases will eventually lead to the increase of successful verdicts. Emphasis of looking past the stereotype of a mental illness person should be placed on the jury in order to take all the facts of the case into play and base decisions on the evidence at hand. Psychologists’ evaluations should be taken into more depth and understanding eventually leading to the acceptance that most defendants are authentically sick and need professional help. Megan Collins, from Quinnipiac University’s School of Law Emerging Scholars Discussion Series, supports this case in her video presentation to fellow peers and professors. She is reaching out to those who believe the misconceptions of this case and are weary with its consequences. Collins shows PowerPoints and videos of inmates who have been granted this plea to engage her audience and shows first hand examples to provide authority. Collins strengthens her argument with these videos and statistics because it shows the information she is presenting is accurate. The videos help to give an extra voice in her presentation that is directly affected by this defense and its pros and cons. 

Collins finds that the public’s fear of the ‘dangerous’ mentally ill has brought about policies that confuse the distinction between treatment and punishment. Because of misconceptions about the defense of insanity and NGRI plea there is a negative perception of persons who use this plea. Collins reaches out to her peers and to all other listeners that do believe this is a get out of jail free card and encourages them to see that this is not the case. She makes the claim that this case is used to lead to the professional treatment of offenders and allows them to be reintegrated into society as a contributing member. She makes suggestions that mental health courts should make an appearance in all states allowing the address of mental health in those who commit misdemeanors and giving them treatment, preventing the risk of a more major and violent crime in the future. And for those acquitted and sent to seek treatment at mental health facilities, she suggests patients undergo risk assessments that are highly supervised and thought thoroughly through when bringing the patients back into society. By making these claims and suggestions along with supporting the more common use of this plea bargain Collins strives to see a successful change in the stigma surrounding this defense and the treatment of those acquitted and sent to seek treatment. NGRI should be thought through and used carefully as to not misuse this generous opportunity to provide help for those in desperate need. Requirements such as, multiple psychiatric evaluations by multiple doctors, should be put into place as to only fill spots in the institution with deserving patients. It is important to advocate for the mentally ill in the justice system. Regularly their diseases are ignored in court and they are sent to their place of punishment where they slip deeper into their sickness with no chance of a proper treatment. Not guilty by reason of insanity allows opportunity for those haunted by extreme mental illness to seek treatment and later be introduced back into society as healthy, law abiding citizens. This plea should be save for such individuals in order for them to be acquitted properly and eventually live a better life after answering for their crimes.

After serving the court appointed punishment and regaining sanity the release of the mentally ill prisoners has never been favorable or easy. Judges, juries, psychologists, psychiatrists, and all other professionals involved don’t want the blood of a recommitted crime on their hands. To avoid this guilt judges and jurors will often send the mentally ill defendants to prison or a mental institution with no chance of seeing freedom again. This is found evident in Mr. Mark Becker’s case. Mr. Becker early in March 2010 was found guilty of killing Satan; of course, though the victim wasn’t truly Satan, but instead Becker’s high school football coach. Mr. Becker, while off his medicine and severely mentally ill, believed him to be Satan. This didn’t seem important to the criminal justice system; “Prior to issuing their verdict, the jury asked the judge what would happen if they found Mr. Becker ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’ (NGBRI). The judge wouldn’t answer, so the jury took the safe approach; ‘Guilty as charged.’” (Our Legal System Still Does a Terrible Job of Handling the Mentally Ill). Being involved in a case featuring a mentally ill criminal can make making an unbiased decision feel impossible. In today’s society, we all have our understanding and opinions about the mentally ill and more often than not they aren’t positive. These predicated opinions can be found seeping into our judicial system. Many have concluded that once an unstable, violent criminal is sent away for treatment or punishment there is no possibility they can be reintegrated safely to society. Judges jurors, and Jaffe, author of Our Justice System Still Does a Terrible Job of Handling the Mentally Ill, are among these people. Jaffe argues “theoretically, when their sanity is restored, Mr. Hinckley and Ms. Yates can both be released, to go off medication and start drowning kids or shooting presidents again. As a practical matter, few judges are willing to risk that on their watch, so even when sanity is restored-as it allegedly has been in the cast of both Mr. Hinckley and Ms. Yates-NGBRI acquittees are routinely kept committed.” (Our Justice System). Mr. Hinckley, attempted assassin of President Ronald Reagan, and Andrea Yates, mother accused of drowning her five children, are famous acquittal cases Jaffe has referred to. Jaffe relies on popular belief in his argument. There is no evidence of a mentally unstable person being released only to commit the same crime that locked them away. Jaffe focuses solely on cases where the defendant is sent away based on the belief that all violent mentally ill convicts should be sent to a secure hospital or prison indefinitely. For someone uneducated in this topic this seems logical and reasonable. Common thought is the impossibility of one being treated and educated enough to be introduced back into society safely. Although, this might’ve been the case in the past when mental illness was overlooked and not researched and misunderstood, times and science has changed. Conditional release has been well researched in order to ensure a prosperous release for treated patients. Conditional release is a form of IOC, or involuntary outpatient commitment.  Through the research of this release three new steps have been put into place. “First… analysis of an individual’s interactions with the law to identify instances or contexts in which mental 

health interventions might be beneficial for the individual…. Enlisting a patient’s participation at the time of discharge could help patients set self-imposed risk reduction goals they understand and feel within their control.” (From the Psychiatric Hospital to the Community: Integrating Conditional Release and Contingency Management). Conditional release has become a huge beneficial factor when transitioning from hospital to society. Mental health professionals work day in and day out with these convicted criminals to bring them back to a stable mind and back to the normal life they once lived. People of our society should feel safe with this program implicated into our secure state mental institutions. These professionals do not take their work lightly and do everything they can to work with these offenders before they consider release an option. 

Through the winding and bumpy road of the criminal justice system the mentally ill caught up in it don’t have it easy by any means. Stereotypes and other harsh judgements often keep them from receiving a fair trial, punishment, and release date. It is important to throw away all predetermined bias and go in opened as a society when involving the mentally ill in our justice system. Plea bargains like NGRI and outpatient commitments like Conditional Release are just a few new programs added to our judicial system to aide in fairness. 
