The Psychological State of Offenders and Its Effect on Sentencing

When I attended a sitting of Cork District Court, I witnessed an offender who was pleading not guilty to threatening to murder his partner. The man was found to be not guilty due to a hung jury (6 believed he was innocent and 6 believed he was guilty). This case led me to argue the difference in the length of a sentence received by an offender with psychopathic traits versus an offender with a mental disorder and the role of a juries’ opinion of the offender and how it affects the length of the sentence. When I witnessed this case it firstly made me consider how an offender with psychopathic traits may use their confidence and strong social skills as a way of manipulating the jury into swaying in their favour. Take for example the trial of Ted Bundy, due to the fact Bundy was a law student he decided, even though he had a lawyer while in court, to represent himself to the jury and judge. His elaborate speeches, his charm and his good looks made many girls in their late teens and early twenties feel attracted to him, this was also aided by the fact that this was the first ever murder trial to be broadcast on television. Bundy believed he could manipulate the jury with his intelligence especially on the topic of law, but to no avail as they found him guilty on all charges and ultimately sentenced him to the death penalty. This is one major instance in which we can begin to agree with the thesis that has been stated as the sentence Bundy received was the highest possible sentencing in America, death row. It also proves to us that Bundy did attempt to skew the opinion of the jury.

Let us consider the actual traits that a psychopath may have. In an article written by Robert D. Hare he described psychopathy as a “socially devasting disorder defined by a constellation of affective, interpersonal, and behavioural characteristics” some of these characteristics that Hare included was irresponsibility; lack of empathy, guilt or remorse; egocentricity; impulsivity; pathological lying; manipulativeness; and the persistent violation of social norms and expectations (Hare, 1996). Though this research was undertaken over 20 years ago we can still agree with the points he is making. Similarly, American sociologists William and Joan McCord in 1964 wrote that a psychopath could be seen as an asocial, aggressive and a highly impulsive figure that feels little or sometimes no guilt and is unable to form any lasting bonds of affection with other human beings (McCord & McCord, 1964). In an article called Forensic Psychology: Violence Viewed by Psychopathic Murders they believe that as well as the traits we have already mention psychopathic murders can be adept at lying and creating the sense of the emotion they are lacking at such a time. With this the researchers found a test that allows them to show that psychopathic murderers have abnormal cognitive associations when it comes to violence. The test they used was the Implicit Association Test. With the information they obtained they were able to show the cognitive responses that would underpin their actions which would provide us with an important insight into the criminal mind (Gray & al., 2003). Research also shows that many psychopaths have an above average IQ. This can lead us to further agree with our thesis as this allows them to obtain the knowledge that they could use in their favour during their trial. Take for example, if their victim made a statement recalling what the perpetrator had done to them, the psychopath could claim they never made those statements and try and get the jury to believe them over the victim. Another element that may aid the perpetrator in court would be whether or not they had any prior convictions. Sometimes lesser known convictions may not be known to the jurors as they may not be related to the present case of which they are being prosecuted for. There is also a possibility that the offender could create an alibi just to use to his/her own advantage against the prosecution. This again leads us to using Ted Bundy’s case as an example. He simply claimed he was the man who fitted the description who also had a similar car to the one that was seen at the scene of the crime. One can see that in a way he was trying to manipulate the jury into thinking that it could all just be coincidental and not confirmed fact.

On the other hand, it can be seen in many instances that perpetrators who show both psychopathic traits and commit violent crimes are quite usually convicted and are incarcerated for a number of years. In data provided by the Irish Prison Service we can see that the gender most likely to receive a life sentence for a violent crime is male with 22 of them receiving life sentences in 2017 (no women were given life sentences that year) (Irish Prison Service, 2017). This could possibly lead us to believe that males could be seen to be more violent than females and that there could be a higher chance of a male having psychopathic tendencies than a female. This is how it is mainly portrayed in mass media for example in movies such as Silence of the Lambs (Hannibal Lector) or in television shows such as CSI. With such prevalence of the ‘psycho male’ in modern day television it does lead the mind to believe that only males can possibly have psychotic traits as that is all we witness and if we do see a woman murder someone it is usually made out to be in either self-defence or due to a mental illness rather than it being due to actual psychotic traits. There is no official academic evidence written as of yet to agree or disagree with the statement but it is something to keep in mind when referring to the thesis in the opening paragraph as in the modern world we live in today the media plays a major role in people’s opinions of many topics and this could lead a jury member to have a possible bias if they become too opinionated on a topic they may have witnessed in the media.

The nature of the crime committed and how violent it is does play a major part in the decision of the jury and the possible sentence that can be handed down to the offender. In Ireland the mandatory sentence for murder is life imprisonment. It is said that death can be seen as the ultimate victimisation. Many criminals use murder as a way of gaining excitement and arousal that can them take away the boring humdrum that is happening in their lives. Bizarre and irrational murders are what help us to identify danger signals including; who murders, who gets murdered and where they murdered. A sense of curiosity also plays a major part in how the crime could be committed. In many cases the person may be insensitive to the suffering of others, this is similar to the characteristic of lack of empathy shown by a person with psychopathic traits. They seek to create their own excitement by torturing and murdering others. This led to the creation of two common laws that would be used in court with regards to murder. These laws are Actus Reus which involves the unlawful killing of another person and Mens Rea which is when the defendant must have intended to kill or cause serious injury or harm to another person. These two laws may be altered slightly in courts across the world for example in England the term grievous bodily hard is used to describe serious bodily harm or injury. This leads us to consider whether law and psychology can be linked. In an article written in the book Applying Psychology to Criminal Justice the authors wrote that both law and psychology can be seen to be fundamentally concerned with understanding, analysing, explaining, describing, predicting and also the shaping of human behaviour. It also deals with the fact that some lawyers may come to assume that crimes are predicted upon as offender have free will and can decide whether or not they actually commit the crimes. But on the other hand, psychologists argue that there is emphasis on certain factors that indicate that the ‘decision’ is constrained or even determined. This then allows lawyers to consider that there could have been pressure in the individual cases that could mandate the legal defences or mitigation but they still insist that offenders would have had the ability to choose to act differently (Carson, Milne, & al, 2007). With this information it now allows us to agree once again with our thesis as there is proof that the court system will more often prevail and the perpetrator will receive the sentence that is appropriate but as written by Carson, Milne, & al, if a lawyer does take a psychological stance on the case it leads the jury to contemplate the state of mind the offender may have been in when committing the crime. This then leads us on to distinguishing the differences between offenders who prove to have psychopathic tendencies or traits versus offenders who may have a mental disorder or a mental illness both of which will have an effect on the jury’s decision on the length of the sentenced that will be handed down to the offender.

As I have said in a previous paragraph, psychopathy is considered to be a personality disorder rather than a mental disorder as even with the psychopathic traits they possess, they are seen as sane as they have the ability to tell the difference between what is right and what is wrong. There is a belief in the modern world today that people who suffer from mental illness could possibly be violent and dangerous. Now when we consider the theme of human nature, this is where law and psychology split as they have different ways of viewing it. For the law mental illness is not acknowledged as a technical term and but to the jury they understand what it means and can make the decision of whether to apply it to the individual the case is against. Under the Irish Legal System, the level of criminal responsibility is judged on the level of the individual’s factors as it is the individual who is responsible for their behaviour. The only way an offender is excused from any legal liability is only if they were not in the mental state to be fully aware that they are committing the crime. Even with this it does not mean the perpetrator is seen as fully innocent and is free, they instead may be subject to obtain psychiatric help so as to prevent them from repeat offending. This can be seen with regards to a number of cases where a crime may have been committed out of a delusion the offender may have had and because they could not see sense and chose the morally right thing to do then the jury could be subject to giving a lesser sentence to allow for the offender to get the help they need so as to prevent them from re-offending. The case of Daniel M’Naughten was one of the first cases where the offender was found to be innocent on the grounds of insanity. The crime which M’Naughten committed was that he assassinated Edward Drummond in 1843 while suffering from paranoids delusions which he then later claimed that the Tories had forced him to do it. The Chief Justice at this time told the jury that if they found him not guilty on the grounds of insanity then he would be provided with proper care to aid his mental well-being and discourage him from reoffending. The aftermath of this trial then lead to the establishment of the legal test for insanity. In an article written in the Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology it explains how the offenders who are found to have been acquitted of a crime on the grounds of insanity will be placed in the custody and care of a local psychiatric hospital. Once the offender is deemed to have recovered from this state they are then released into the prison system if they still have time to serve and those who’s sentences have expired can possibly be released into the public as long as they are found to be sane enough. Within this article Dr. Flint also discusses how if an offender is acquitted on the grounds of insanity but is considered to be dangerous if released then a habeas corpus can be drawn to decide on their overall release. Habeas corpus is a written command that requiring a person who is under arrest to be brought before either a court of a judge as so to secure the person’s release unless it is lawfully proven that they should remain in detention (NorthWestern University Pritzker School of Law, 1911).

Before 2006 the law stated that to create a defence on the grounds of insanity it must be clear that the offender, at the time of committing the crime, was acting in such a nature due to a disease on the mind and was not fully aware of the crime they were committing at the time. But from 2006 onwards it was decided that these ‘mental disorders’ that were being experienced by a cohort of offenders included mental illness, mental disability, dementia and any other disease of the mind but it does not include the possible delusion and loss of memory that may occur due to intoxication. Many offenders who do offend while being mentally unstable or unwell commit the actual act while in a delusion. A delusion is a fixed false belief that the person believes to be wholly true despite numerous factors that proves it to be false. Some of the most severe mental disorders an offender could possibly have includes schizophrenia and bipolar affective disorder. These impact a person’s cognitive functions for prolonged periods of time and can cause the person to lose overall contact with reality and experience both hallucinations and delusions. This is often when a perpetrator may commit a crime because they are so unwell in their own minds, they just genuinely have no concept of what they are committing. With this vulnerability that these offenders have they are more likely to give false confessions as they may believe they committed a crime they might have never been involved in. This is similar to the main story line in John Grisham’s true crime novel The Innocent Man which has now become a Netflix documentary series. In this novel Grisham documents how a man from a small town in Oklahoma who is serving time on death row after being accused of both rape and murder. While in prison he begins to believe that he never committed the murder. He was a failed sports star and suffered from a drinking problem and depression. The vulnerability that was brought on by his depression was, in a way, exploited by the police when he was being questioned as they lead him to believe he had done it in a delusional state as he was either high or drunk at the time. Being on death row caused his mental health to deteriorate even further with him being diagnosed with manic depression, personality disorders, alcoholism and mild schizophrenia. With this diagnosis it was deemed because he was that mentally unwell, he should have never been there on death row the first place. He was exonerated after serving 11 years after new DNA evidence and other materials were found by the Innocence Project and he was then released from prison (Grisham, 2006). This furthermore allows us to agree with the thesis statement we made in the very beginning of this essay as it proves that offenders with mental health issues can obtain shorter sentences of imprisonment as they are instead sent to psychiatric institutions, it also proves our other theory that the jurors can also be influenced by the sanity levels of the perpetrator as they can be swayed to perceive that they are guilty when there could be the actual possibility that they may not have even been involved in the crime but their mental state is so fragile they begin to believe that they were involved.

Overall, with the information I have provided in the above paragraphs it proves to us that the thesis I made in the opening paragraph regarding a juries view of an offender and how it can be both be influenced on their view of the sanity levels of the perpetrator and whether or not they are manipulated in any way by both the offender and their own biases is in many ways through. There is also proof of how the difference in sentencing between mentally ill offenders and offenders who have shown psychopathy in any way.