Guilty or Not Guilty
Criminal behavior and cognitive impairment have a thin line of division as to how the criminal in question ought to get punished or if they need punishing at all. The term ‘mentally disordered offender’ is always used, referring to the individual who suffers from a disability or mind disorder and who is suspect to having committed a crime. Even though the question of having this condition is complex where crime is committed, the public needs protection from such an unstable person to prevent cases of crime. The following essay seeks to establish the extent that the system of criminal justice should go to in making reconsideration where a person with cognitive impairment is the suspect.
Psychological Impairment Consideration
The system of criminal justice could choose to exonerate individuals who suffer from mental illnesses. However, they will not have the ability to determine the extent, validity and the effects of the defense. In the case of Clive Wearing, having a 7-second memory is haunting. It would be hard for the court to determine justice as part of the public would expect, if a tragedy were to happen. When more real evidence lacks, the court may not establish absence or presence of motive. People who have mental impairment act at the moment and as happened before, many individuals who have a psychological disability have been tried, convicted and sentenced because the defendants’ defense became inadmissible in court.
Learning disability is inhumane in itself but worse when a person becomes suspect to a crime. The Department of Correction (DOC) has incarcerated people with learning difficulties who committed grave crimes. Most often than not, once incarcerated, the individual with learning disability gets complete alienation even from fellow inmates because they cannot participate in educational programs in prison or stay in contact with friends and loved ones (Lyon, 2008). The Jury ought to consider learning disability as a factor before giving the verdict. Reason being, there is a general lack of understanding of what is happening to the offender in question because their ability to comprehend is already undependable.
In this consideration, the court should consider using simpler language to make sure that the person with the disability understands why they are getting convicted sent to prison (Morgan, 1998). When the judge is handing down the sentence, considering learning disability as a factor would not be a must. However, it would be an act of humanity showing that they understand and empathize with the condition of the offender. People with mental disorders or disabilities should not get overlooked once they commit a crime; however, the court needs to reconsider handling them from the perspective of their disability and not ultimately exerting the full wrath of justice on the offender.
Reason and Final Thoughts
A mental disability is not irreversible. People with mental disability act or behave irrationally because that is how broken their normal is. The criminal justice system should apply leniency to a certain extent that ensure that, the offender gets a punishment for the crime they have committed, and also that the public who seek justice get satisfied from the judgment. It is of relevance to acknowledge that a person with the psychological disorder may carry out a grave crime. However, the fact remains that the individual has a disorder and the judgment cannot be a replica of that given to an ordinary person without special considerations.
References
Lyon, J. (2008). This is Not Justice. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/nov/20/prisonsandprobation- learningdisability
Morgan, T. (1988). Learning Disabilities g and Crime. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/1988/10/31/nyregion/learning-disabilities-and-crime-struggle- to-snap-the-link.html
