When does &quot;mental health&quot; factor into penalizing an individual?
<p>What is the reason behind a person with poor mental health wouldn't face the same repercussions as someone with good mental health for breaking the law? In extreme situations it could be used as a defense in murder (like James Holmes). In lessor situations, someone who is drunk saying racist remarks on the street may not be charged with hate speech.</p>

<p>If the reason is people because sending them to prison wouldn't help rehabilitate them, do people really think it ever does for people with good mental health? </p>

<p>Doesn't this sort of allow psychiatrists to make up the law, because they can decide if something is considered a mental condition? Some people would argue that someone who would commit such crimes (such as rape) couldn't possibly be in their right mind. </p>

<p>It depends on the jurisdiction but, very broadly speaking, the person might be ill such that:</p>

<ul>
<li><p>they did not know what they were doing or that what they were doing was wrong (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity_defense" rel="nofollow noreferrer">insanity</a>)</p></li>
<li><p>their ability to understand their actions or make a reasoned decision or self control was highly impaired but not to the degree of insanity (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminished_responsibility" rel="nofollow noreferrer">diminished responsibility</a> or perhaps <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provocation_(legal)" rel="nofollow noreferrer">provocation</a>)</p></li>
<li><p>they were unconscious when they acted (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatism_(law)" rel="nofollow noreferrer">automatism</a> - e.g. an offence committed while 'sleep walking')</p></li>
</ul>

<p>Clearly they lack the same culpability as a person with "good mental health", who consciously committed a criminal offence, knowing it was wrong.</p>

<p>That does not mean the ill person can 'get away with it'. </p>

<p>Claiming diminished responsibility as a defence to a murder charge may mean the person will instead be tried for manslaughter, which is also punishable by imprisonment.</p>

<p>Depending on the circumstances a court (and subsequent people in authority) might be persuaded that the person is so dangerous they must be indefinitely detained and treated without their consent.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Doesn't this sort of allow psychiatrists to make up the law, because
  they can decide if something is considered a mental condition?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Just because a psychiatrist comes along doesn't mean the court will do what the psychiatrist says is best - the court will hear both sides of the argument, establish the facts, interpret the law and deliver a verdict.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Some people would argue that someone who would commit such crimes (such as rape) couldn't possibly be in their right mind. </p>
</blockquote>

<p>Certainly, but so far as I'm aware that defence is very rarely used and never successful.</p>

health mental-health jurisprudence