“It is important to realize that incompatibility of the prison environment does not negate the rights of the offenders to receive appropriate medical care, including mental health services” (Soderstrom 2007).
the problem with punishment
The normal goal of punishment is deterrence. Deterrence requires the ability to choose. Since mentally ill individuals lack substantial free will, “the offender has lost his ability to freely choose whether or not to recommit the offense, and he is therefore undeterrable through punishment” (Gracheck 2006). Since their actions are often committed due to impulsion or delusion, they cannot be deterred by traditional tactics. Their condition requires medical treatment, not traditional consequences.
The prisoner "responded to the stress [of hearing another prisoner’s murder] by cutting himself, and was subsequently given a disciplinary report and placed in an isolation cell for ‘destruction of state property'" (Grachek 2006).
Moreover, case studies illustrate that the prison environment is detrimental to the well-being of the mentally ill. For example, a prison report filed in 2002 described how an individual suffering from a mental disorder “responded to the stress [of hearing another prisoner’s murder] by cutting himself, and was subsequently given a disciplinary report and placed in an isolation cell for ‘destruction of state property” (Gracheck 2006). This particular example illustrates the treatment of mentally ill offenders within the prison system. The mentally ill prisoner inflicts harm upon himself in response to the stress of his surroundings. As this illustration confirms, mentally ill individuals frequently do not have the wherewithal to respond appropriately to stressful circumstances. Instead, they often attempt to cope in irrational, destructive ways. Within traditional contexts of punishment, the mentally ill are not only deprived of adequate treatment, but often aggravated by toxic environments.
Present application of the defense
After establishing that the existence insanity defense is ethically necessary, the present application of the defense must be examined. The underlying principles of the insanity defense hold that mental illness is an issue that requires significant attention and accommodation under the law. When evaluating the policy, it is important to note that “mentally ill offenders do not suffer from a moral defect that is subject to rehabilitation, but instead suffer from a mental disease that is in need of medical treatment” (Gracheck 2006). In order to fulfill its purpose in practice, the insanity defense must ensure that the court orders appropriate treatment according to the mentally ill person’s needs. However, under the current administration of the policy, mentally ill individuals are not receiving the care they need. In fact, even advocates of the insanity defense characterize the current system as “anti-therapeutic.” The anti-therapeautic system incarcerates individuals and deprives them of treatment at alarmingly high levels. At the turn of the 21st century, an estimated quarter of a million people serving in prisons and jails through the nation were considered mentally ill. Furthermore, of the large
number of incarcerated mentally ill, only about sixty percent of those people were receiving any form of medical treatment. The present implementation of the defense “robs the mentally ill their right to treatment” (Gracheck 2006). Because of these shortcomings, the policy in practice fails to produce the just results intended.
Consequentialism: the theory that the outcome, results, or consequences of an action determine whether it is ethical or unethical
Placing individuals with mental illnesses into the prison system and depriving them of medical treatment inflicts harm upon them. Based on the principle of consequentialism, an action that results in the harm of an innocent individual must be considered wrong.