Mental Disability: A Lawbreaker's Excuse?

Mental health is a complex issue that intersects with the law in various ways. While mental illness is not a justification for breaking the law, it is one of the traditional excusing conditions for a crime. The insanity defence, also known as the mental disorder defence, argues that the defendant is not responsible for their actions due to their mental state. However, intention is what matters, and people with mental health issues are still held responsible for their actions. Criminal law theory suggests that individuals with specific mental health disorders should be exempt from punishment because they could not have chosen to act otherwise.

The law's handling of mental health varies across different legal contexts. For example, in the workplace, employees with mental health conditions are protected against discrimination and harassment under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA defines disability as a physical or mental impairment that significantly limits one or more major life activities. This protection extends to job applicants and employees, guaranteeing their right to privacy and reasonable accommodations.

In the realm of criminal law, the question of competency to stand trial arises. A person may be deemed incompetent if they lack the capacity to consult with an attorney or understand the proceedings due to a mental disability. In such cases, the trial may be postponed until the defendant receives treatment, or it may never occur if the condition is permanent.

The interplay between mental health and the law is a nuanced topic that requires further development to address shortcomings and protect the rights of individuals with mental health issues.

Mental illness as an excuse for breaking the law

Mental illness is a complex issue that has been portrayed in the media and news outlets as an excuse for breaking the law. While it is true that mental illness can be a mitigating factor in criminal proceedings, it is not a justifiable reason to break the law.

In the United States, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee Due Process to every defendant standing trial. Due Process prevents the denial of life, liberty, or property without the just administration of the law. This means that a person's mental state can affect their ability to stand trial and be sentenced. If a defendant is found incompetent to stand trial due to a mental disability, the criminal proceedings may be postponed until the defendant is competent, or the trial may not be held at all in cases of permanent conditions. However, it is important to note that incompetency to stand trial is different from pleading insanity as a defense, which relates to the defendant's mental state at the time of the alleged criminal act.

Mental health professionals advocate for the affirmative defense of mental illness in intentional torts, while civil attorneys oppose it. Courts consider whether a criminal defendant's mental illness makes punishment unfair, but the rules differ for civil liability. The insanity defense, also known as the mental disorder defense, argues that the defendant is not breaking the law due to their mental illness.

People with mental illnesses are arrested and imprisoned disproportionately due to a lack of awareness and resources for handling these issues. To address this, some suggest re-envisioning jails as enforced, comprehensive treatment centers. While mental health laws exist to protect individuals with mental illnesses, there are shortcomings that need to be addressed to better protect human rights.

In the workplace, individuals with mental illnesses are protected against discrimination and harassment under laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The ADA defines disability as a physical or mental impairment that significantly limits one or more major life activities, providing legal protections against employment discrimination. Additionally, employees with mental illnesses have the right to privacy and may be entitled to reasonable accommodations, such as altered work schedules or a quieter work environment, to help them perform their jobs effectively.

Criminal law theory and mental health

In criminal law proceedings, the court considers whether a defendant's mental illness renders punishment unfair. The insanity defence, also known as the mental disorder defence, is an affirmative defence that argues the defendant is not responsible for their actions due to mental illness. This defence is based on the notion that intention matters, and a person with mental illness may be declared not criminally responsible if their condition impairs their ability to make intentional decisions.

However, mental illness is not a justification for willful or criminal actions. While it may be considered as a mitigating factor, it does not excuse illegal behaviour. The law must protect the human rights of individuals with mental health issues and address any shortcomings in the current system.

In the United States, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee Due Process, which ensures that defendants are competent to stand trial. A person may be deemed incompetent if they lack the capacity to understand the proceedings or consult with an attorney rationally. Incompetency can arise from physical or mental disabilities, and it is for the judge, relying on evaluations by trained professionals, to determine competency.

The question of competency to stand trial is separate from the question of insanity, which relates to the defendant's mental state at the time of the criminal act. A defendant may be competent to stand trial but still plead insanity as a defence. If a defendant is found incompetent, the criminal proceedings may be postponed until they receive treatment, or in cases of permanent conditions, a trial may never be held.

Outside of the criminal justice system, individuals with mental health conditions are protected by laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in the workplace. The ADA prohibits discrimination against individuals with mental health conditions and guarantees their right to privacy and reasonable accommodations.

In conclusion, while mental illness may be considered as a mitigating factor in criminal law, it does not excuse criminal behaviour. The legal system must balance the rights of individuals with mental health issues while also holding them accountable for their actions.

The insanity defence

The legal definitions of insanity or mental disorder vary, and include the M'Naghten Rule, the Durham rule, the 1953 British Royal Commission on Capital Punishment report, the ALI rule (American Legal Institute Model Penal Code rule), and other provisions, often relating to a lack of mens rea ("guilty mind"). The M'Naghten Rule, which originated in 1843, states that a defendant should not be held responsible for their actions if, as a result of their mental disease or defect, they did not know the nature and quality of their actions or that their actions were wrong. This rule became the standard for insanity in the United States and the United Kingdom and is still the standard in almost half of US states.

In the United States, a criminal defendant may plead insanity in federal court and in most state courts. However, defendants in states that disallow the insanity defence may still be able to demonstrate that they were not capable of forming intent to commit a crime due to mental illness. The insanity defence is rarely used, and when it is, it has only a 26% success rate.

In Australia and Canada, statutory legislation enshrines the M'Naghten Rules, with terms such as defence of mental disorder, defence of mental illness, or not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder. In the United Kingdom, Ireland, and the United States, the use of the defence is rare, and mitigating factors such as intoxication and partial defences such as diminished capacity and provocation are used more frequently.

In Australia, an accused found to be insane is exposed to special court powers of disposal. If an individual is not criminally responsible, they are not free to walk away but may be detained in a secure psychiatric unit in a prison for a period that can be longer than a prison term.

Workplace rights for those with mental health conditions

People with mental health conditions are protected by law against discrimination and harassment at work. This includes those with depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), or other mental health conditions. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) defines disability as a physical or mental impairment that significantly limits one or more major life activities. Job applicants or employees with a mental health condition that meets this criterion have workplace rights under the ADA.

Workplace Privacy Rights

In most situations, employees can keep their condition private. An employer is only allowed to ask medical questions (including questions about mental health) in four situations:

• When an employee asks for a reasonable accommodation
• After a job offer has been made, but before employment begins, as long as everyone entering the same job category is asked the same questions
• When engaging in affirmative action for people with disabilities (e.g. an employer tracking the disability status of its applicant pool)
• On the job, when there is objective evidence that an employee may be unable to do their job or may pose a safety risk because of their condition

Reasonable Accommodations

Employees may have a legal right to reasonable accommodations that would help them do their job. A reasonable accommodation is a change to the way things are normally done at work. Examples include:

• Altered break and work schedules (e.g. scheduling work around therapy appointments)
• Quiet office space or devices that create a quiet work environment
• Changes in supervisory methods (e.g. written instructions from a supervisor who usually does not provide them)
• Specific shift assignments
• Permission to work from home

Harassment

Harassment based on a disability is not allowed under the ADA. Employees should tell their employer about any harassment if they want the employer to stop the problem.

Determining competency to stand trial

Competency to stand trial relates to the defendant's mental state after an offence, not before or during it. A person who is deemed incompetent may not have the required competency to be tried in a manner that satisfies the requirements of Due Process. Due Process, as declared in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, prevents the denial of life, liberty, or property without the just administration of the law.

A person is deemed to be incompetent if they either:

• Lack the capacity to consult with an attorney with a reasonable degree of rational understanding
• Lack a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings they are facing

The question of competency to stand trial is legally unrelated to the defendant's mental state at the time of the alleged crime. The question of insanity relates to the defendant's mental state at the time of the alleged criminal act, while the question of competency relates to the defendant's state at the time of trial. Thus, a defendant may be competent to stand trial and yet plead insanity.

Determining Competency

Incompetency may be the result of a physical handicap, such as an inability to speak, or a temporary or permanent mental disability, such as mental illness or amnesia. The question of whether a defendant is incompetent to stand trial may be raised by the prosecutor, the defence, or the trial judge. Once raised, incompetency is generally a question for the judge to determine and not a question for a jury. The judge will rely on evaluations by trained professionals, such as a psychiatrist or psychologist, and the defendant may be committed to a mental health facility while the determination is pending.

A defendant or their attorney cannot waive the issue of competency. Some states require a defence attorney to ask for a competency evaluation if they believe that there is any possibility that their client may not be competent to stand trial.

A judge will evaluate competency on a case-by-case basis, usually with the assistance of psychologists. They have the authority to order that a defendant takes medication to address a condition if this would make them competent. A judge will need to determine competency early in the process, as soon as it is raised. Either the prosecution or the defence may raise the issue, and the judge also can raise it on their own if neither side does. They may observe signs of incompetency from the defendant's behaviour if they do not appear to understand basic elements of the proceedings.

The Effect of Incompetency

If a defendant is found to be incompetent to stand trial, the criminal proceedings will be postponed until the defendant is competent (e.g. as a result of treatment by trained professionals). In the case of a permanent condition, such as severe mental retardation, a defendant may never be deemed competent, and a criminal trial may never be held.

Frequently asked questions