Essay On Mental Illness In Australia

To be convicted of an offence in South Australia, the defendant must have possessed certain cognitive, voluntary and moral capacities at the time they committed the criminal act. Currently, the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) defines a mental impairment as not knowing the nature and quality of the conduct, did not know the conduct was wrong, or unable to control the conduct at the time of the offense. There are multiple Forensic Mental Health Facilities within South Australia, however only Queensland has established a specialised Mental Health Court at present, in regard to the Mental Health Act 2000. This court decides if the defendant was of unsound mind when offence was committed, resulting in being detained for involuntary treatment or care. Despite different states of Australia featuring different outcomes for the mentally ill within court, Commonwealth level orders them to be detained in a prison or hospital with the
Attorney General considering their outcome of whether they are released.

Against:
Although South Australia does not feature a specific ‘Mental Health Court’, the Magistrate Court Diversion Program is essentially the same thing. To be eligible, the offender must plead guilty to an offence heard in the South Australian Magistrates Court, returning to the court every 2 months to be monitored. If they successfully cooperate, both offences and involvement in the Program will be considered, and the charges may be dismissed without conviction or penalty. From this, victims may argue that outcomes for offences are milder for mentally ill offenders. Division 3 of CLCA, states that if the court orders an investigation regarding the defendant’s mental fitness to stand trial, the court may adjourn or discontinue the trial to allow the investigation. This again establishes the ability for mental incapable offenders gaining special provisions within the court. Despite the range of psychological support for victim of a crime such as the Victim Support Service, the Victim of Crimes Act 2001 (SA) guarantees victims the right to information, privacy and courtesy. A recent New Zealand case is an example of the anger that victims feel after Tevito Filo is found not-guilty by reason of insanity after murdering Jo Pert, “Pert's parents said Filo's "unforgivable, selfish action" had left them shattered and angry”. This case demonstrates the belief that an offender’s mental illness is not an excuse for their crime, and must be accountable for their actions.

Against:
Differentiating the extent of mental illness within offenders can prove a challenge within the court despite the quantity of investigations if suspection arises. Although there are different outcomes for different Australian states, an offender’s mental fitness to stand trial is presumed unless an investigation establishes that they are unable to stand trial. The investigations are ordered by court on the application of the prosecution or defence or if the judge considers the investigation necessary using their own initiative. A report made by Lynne Malcolm stated that deciphering the the extent the effects or validity of the defence. She stated that psychiatric and legal constructs don’t always match up, therefore the credibility and reliance of mental states is not always correct. In the report, Dr Bartels stated that indefinite detention guides lawyers to have their clients’ mental illness considered when being sentenced due to a lesser or more lenient sentence.

For:
By developing a specialised Mental Health Court within South Australia would eliminate any possibility of miscarriages of justice, including inequality within the court.
The court will be focused on resolving issues, including understanding the needs of those with mental illnesses. Better trained personnel including counselors and specialised barristers/judges who are more equipped to handle the cases in front of them. By including lawyers in specific training, they will be able to identify and manage the offending. A common occurrence is lawyer's plea bargaining to find an alternate verdict, as they do not fully investigate or understand the disability before commencing a plea. The Uniform Evidence Acts state that every person is competent to give evidence unless they cannot understand a question or cannot give an answer that can be understood. Despite South Australia not adopting these laws, the Mental Health Act 2000 states evidently the same. This presents the argument that development of a Mental Health Court would
establish