Mentally Impaired People In Prisons Essay
Mentally impaired people in prisons:
The detention of mentally impaired people in prisons is a problem that is currently occurring within Australia, mostly people of Indigenous descent. As this is a reoccurring issue, is yet to be resolved. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), everyone is entitled to human rights no matter what age, background, sex or religion. Everyone is entitled to the right to liberty, life and freedom of speech. This critical issue is breaching individual’s human rights among the population, according to Sotiri, M, McGee, P, Baldry, E (2012), there is “No End in Sight” for this concerning issue.
According to Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), he argued that utilitarianism maximises pleasure for the most people such as pleasure and happiness and minimises suffering for the most people, such as pain and unhappiness. An act should only be done if it fulfils this requirement (Nathanson, 2016). Another aspect of utilitarianism is consequentialism, which holds the consequences of ones conduct. This impacts on the standard for judgement about the rightness or wrongness of that particular conduct (Haines, 2016).
Two of the most important aims …show more content…
when sentencing an individual are deterrence and rehab. Rehab aims to assist an offender to obtain an orderly life within the community. This enables the individual to avoid imprisonment, which is in the best interest of the individual and also the general community. Deterrence aims to not only discourage the offender from reoffending but to also set an example to warn others of the consequences that could occur such as imprisonment.
Mentally impaired people are ignored when trying to make the community safer, when applying this to utilitarianism; the welfare of the community is the main focus, not the few that are attained in jail. Deterrence and rehab don’t comply with the mentally impaired offended in jail, as they have not been sentenced and will not have a release date as they have not gone to court.
In 2003 a fourteen-year-old boy was put behind bars due to a car accident that led to the death of his twelve year old cousin. He was deemed too brain damaged and was to stand trial for manslaughter. He couldn’t understand the proceedings of the court case and was sentenced under the ‘Governor’s pleasure Act. The offender is now 25 years old and has not faced trial. Instead of facing the Mentally Impaired Accused law, his lawyer is pushing for a sentence. This way he will eventually be released, however his mental issues are not being addressed. He is one of 39 people in WA who are currently detained under the Mentally Impaired Accused law (Corporation, 2015). This is a clear example of how mentally impaired people are ignored when trying to make the community safer.
The opposite of utilitarianism is deontology, which guides and assesses our choices of what we ought to do as well as what kind of person we are and should be (Alexander and Moore, 2007). According to Immanuel Kant (1724-804CE), he described deontology as a reason that depends on respect for rules and that we are “duty bound” to follow these rules to avoid contradiction (Rohlf, 2010). If the meaning of deontology is to follow the rules, then putting a mentally impaired person in prison with no trial or release date is not following these binding rules, but going against the definition. According to categorical imperative, which falls under deontology, any plan of intention must be subject to the test of whether such actions would be universally endorsed as acceptable.
According to Fast & Corny (2004), fetal alcohol spectrum (FADS) disorder is an underlying reason for criminal behaviour. People with this disorder have an inability to understand concepts as well as please people in authority. It is highly likely that a person with this FADS can be mistreated in jail and misjudged in court, as they are being undermined and victimized (Fast & Conry, 2004). In this circumstance, intrinsic values act in a way that the way you treat others, never only as a means to an end but as always having intrinsic personal value and worth. According to a deontologist, they may argue that the sentencing process should only impose a sentence on the offender that is relative to the seriousness of the offence. However, these individuals are being treated unfairly by not going to trial and being imprisoned because of their disability.
John Rawls (1921-2002), describes theory of justice as not having a concern with how individuals should behave in given situations, but the focus is on the achievement of fair and just society as well as the rights of the individuals who live in that society (Wenar, 2008).
According to the liberty principle, which falls under the theory of justice, each person has equal rights with a similar liberty for others, some which include the right to vote and freedom of speech. Being able to do these things allow individuals to be apart of a fair and just society. Under the pretence of a mentally impaired individuals being imprisoned, how it is a fair and just society when they are sitting in prison and haven’t been convicted or put to trial. This undermines the legality of the issue. The difference principle also falls under the theory of justice, which benefits members of society who are least advantaged. Inequality can be used to promote justice by improving the situation of the most disadvantaged. According to the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, this shows the unfairness of how mentally impaired individual’s are being treated whilst being incarcerated. It is sad to say that Rawl’s theory is not being followed through the justice system when surrendering equality in favour of advantaging the disadvantaged of mentally impaired persons.
According to Carol Gilligan, ethics of care is about having a voice and being listened to, while at the same time being respected. From a moral perspective it’s about paying attention to what is just and how to respond. Gilligan looks at a more feministic approach, which she concludes that women tend to highlight the empathy and compassion as the “justice” view universally of what is ethically right (Gilligan, 2011).
In conjunction with ethics of care, Joan Tronto states that there are four elements in care, which comprise of attentiveness, responsibility, competence and responsiveness.
These ethics are about mutuality and building a relationship with trust (Keller, Nelson & Wick, 2003). It becomes challenging and complex when within the criminal justice system; the care receiver doesn’t acknowledge the need of care. This is important to note, as mentally impaired people don’t know what’s occurring to them. They resist and are resentful of the care that they are being given. This is typically challenging, as mentally impaired people aren’t aware of their actions and the damages that they could cause both mentally and physically. They do not see their behaviour as threatening, thinking it’s the
“norm”.
The detention of mentally impaired people in prisons is a problem that is currently occurring within Australia, mostly people of Indigenous descent. As this is a reoccurring issue, is yet to be resolved. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), everyone is entitled to human rights no matter what age, background, sex or religion. Everyone is entitled to the right to liberty, life and freedom of speech. This critical issue is breaching individual’s human rights among the population, according to Sotiri, M, McGee, P, Baldry, E (2012), there is “No End in Sight” for this concerning issue.
According to Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), he argued that utilitarianism maximises pleasure for the most people such as pleasure and happiness and minimises suffering for the most people, such as pain and unhappiness. An act should only be done if it fulfils this requirement (Nathanson, 2016). Another aspect of utilitarianism is consequentialism, which holds the consequences of ones conduct. This impacts on the standard for judgement about the rightness or wrongness of that particular conduct (Haines, 2016).
Two of the most important aims …show more content…
when sentencing an individual are deterrence and rehab. Rehab aims to assist an offender to obtain an orderly life within the community. This enables the individual to avoid imprisonment, which is in the best interest of the individual and also the general community. Deterrence aims to not only discourage the offender from reoffending but to also set an example to warn others of the consequences that could occur such as imprisonment.
Mentally impaired people are ignored when trying to make the community safer, when applying this to utilitarianism; the welfare of the community is the main focus, not the few that are attained in jail. Deterrence and rehab don’t comply with the mentally impaired offended in jail, as they have not been sentenced and will not have a release date as they have not gone to court.
In 2003 a fourteen-year-old boy was put behind bars due to a car accident that led to the death of his twelve year old cousin. He was deemed too brain damaged and was to stand trial for manslaughter. He couldn’t understand the proceedings of the court case and was sentenced under the ‘Governor’s pleasure Act. The offender is now 25 years old and has not faced trial. Instead of facing the Mentally Impaired Accused law, his lawyer is pushing for a sentence. This way he will eventually be released, however his mental issues are not being addressed. He is one of 39 people in WA who are currently detained under the Mentally Impaired Accused law (Corporation, 2015). This is a clear example of how mentally impaired people are ignored when trying to make the community safer.
The opposite of utilitarianism is deontology, which guides and assesses our choices of what we ought to do as well as what kind of person we are and should be (Alexander and Moore, 2007). According to Immanuel Kant (1724-804CE), he described deontology as a reason that depends on respect for rules and that we are “duty bound” to follow these rules to avoid contradiction (Rohlf, 2010). If the meaning of deontology is to follow the rules, then putting a mentally impaired person in prison with no trial or release date is not following these binding rules, but going against the definition. According to categorical imperative, which falls under deontology, any plan of intention must be subject to the test of whether such actions would be universally endorsed as acceptable.
According to Fast & Corny (2004), fetal alcohol spectrum (FADS) disorder is an underlying reason for criminal behaviour. People with this disorder have an inability to understand concepts as well as please people in authority. It is highly likely that a person with this FADS can be mistreated in jail and misjudged in court, as they are being undermined and victimized (Fast & Conry, 2004). In this circumstance, intrinsic values act in a way that the way you treat others, never only as a means to an end but as always having intrinsic personal value and worth. According to a deontologist, they may argue that the sentencing process should only impose a sentence on the offender that is relative to the seriousness of the offence. However, these individuals are being treated unfairly by not going to trial and being imprisoned because of their disability.
John Rawls (1921-2002), describes theory of justice as not having a concern with how individuals should behave in given situations, but the focus is on the achievement of fair and just society as well as the rights of the individuals who live in that society (Wenar, 2008).
According to the liberty principle, which falls under the theory of justice, each person has equal rights with a similar liberty for others, some which include the right to vote and freedom of speech. Being able to do these things allow individuals to be apart of a fair and just society. Under the pretence of a mentally impaired individuals being imprisoned, how it is a fair and just society when they are sitting in prison and haven’t been convicted or put to trial. This undermines the legality of the issue. The difference principle also falls under the theory of justice, which benefits members of society who are least advantaged. Inequality can be used to promote justice by improving the situation of the most disadvantaged. According to the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, this shows the unfairness of how mentally impaired individual’s are being treated whilst being incarcerated. It is sad to say that Rawl’s theory is not being followed through the justice system when surrendering equality in favour of advantaging the disadvantaged of mentally impaired persons.
According to Carol Gilligan, ethics of care is about having a voice and being listened to, while at the same time being respected. From a moral perspective it’s about paying attention to what is just and how to respond. Gilligan looks at a more feministic approach, which she concludes that women tend to highlight the empathy and compassion as the “justice” view universally of what is ethically right (Gilligan, 2011).
In conjunction with ethics of care, Joan Tronto states that there are four elements in care, which comprise of attentiveness, responsibility, competence and responsiveness.
These ethics are about mutuality and building a relationship with trust (Keller, Nelson & Wick, 2003). It becomes challenging and complex when within the criminal justice system; the care receiver doesn’t acknowledge the need of care. This is important to note, as mentally impaired people don’t know what’s occurring to them. They resist and are resentful of the care that they are being given. This is typically challenging, as mentally impaired people aren’t aware of their actions and the damages that they could cause both mentally and physically. They do not see their behaviour as threatening, thinking it’s the
“norm”.