mentally disordered offenders dduk-0114-80647656

Problems that arises with Sentencing Mentally Disordered Offenders

By

[Name of the Writer]

[Name of the Institution]

[Name of the Subject]

[Date]

Sentencing Mentally Disordered Offenders ii

Table of Contents

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................................................3

Defining and Understanding Mental Disorders...........................................................................4

Decision to Prosecute..................................................................................................................5

Sentencing Methodology.............................................................................................................7

Just Deserts..............................................................................................................................7

Treatment-based Punishment...................................................................................................8

Sentencing Mentally Disordered Offenders................................................................................9

Law for Protecting the Public....................................................................................................11

The Bradley Report....................................................................................................................13

Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA).......................................................13

The Health and Criminal Justice Programme Board.................................................................14

The Code of Crown Prosecutors................................................................................................14

Guidance of CPS........................................................................................................................16

Qualitative Research..................................................................................................................17

Data Collection Method.............................................................................................................18

Secondary Research...............................................................................................................19

Primary Research...................................................................................................................19

Reliability and Validity..............................................................................................................20

Ethical considerations................................................................................................................21

Justification of Research Instrument.........................................................................................22

Rationale of the Study...............................................................................................................22

Sentencing Mentally Disordered Offenders 3

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

The criminal justice system has not been able to address the problems associated with

mental health offenders. Criminal justice process is complex and it becomes even more

complicated when it is required to handle the issues of people with complex needs. Therefore,

there is a need to develop a matrix that would provide practical solution for facilitating and

addressing the issues of mentally disorder offenders (Shaw, Appleby & Baker, 2003). There has

been an increase in the cases when criminal justice system is called upon for dealing with

mentally ill persons that have been involved in infractions, crimes or are otherwise in need of

help. It has now become the responsibility of criminal justice system to ensure the quality of life

offenses including being loud or disruptive, loitering in front of a business etc. According to The

Sentencing (2002), there has been a substantial increase in number of mentally ill persons in the

criminal justice system. As suggested by Clark, Ricketts and McHugo (1999), Cooper, McLearen

and Zapf (2004) and McFarland et al. (1989) people that have certain mental health problems,

particularly that suffer severe problems are likely to come in frequent contact with police and

most of these individuals are arrested. Under mental health act mentally disordered offenders can

be defined as individuals “those who come into contact with criminal justice system because they

have committed, or are suspected of committing a criminal offence, and who may be acutely or

chronically mentally ill. It also includes those in whom a degree of mental disturbance is

recognised, even though it may not be severe enough to bring it within criteria laid down by the

Mental Health Act 1983”. The purpose of this research is to investigate the problems associated

with sentencing of these mentally disordered offenders. As a result of the Prison Service

focusing on punishment, control and security, there have been many problems to provide

effective and efficient care to mentally disordered offender. It is difficult for the mentally


disordered offenders to deal and cope with the prison culture (Seymour & Rutherford, 2008).

NHS and prison system have conflicting views regarding the treatment of mentally disordered

offenders, the emphasis has been to determine the punishment for the offence instead of treating

the mental disorders.

Defining and Understanding Mental Disorders

According to the Section 1(2) of Mental Health Act 2007 amended section 1(2) Mental

Health Act 1983, mental disorder is defined as “any disability of the mind”. Various other former

categories that defined mental disorder have abolished such as severe mental impairment, mental

illness, psychopathic disorder and mental illness, and there is only one definition that is being

applied throughout the Mental Health Act 1983. Some of the examples of mental disorders that

have been clinically recognised include personality disorders, eating disorders, autistic spectrum

disorders, mental illness including depression, bi polar disorder and schizophrenia and other

learning disabilities. Learning disability is defined as being in a stated of arrested or not having

completely developed mind that may also include significant impairment of intelligence and

social functioning (Prins, 1996). However, it is important to notice that being dependent on

alcohol or drugs is not considered as mental disorder as under the Mental Health Act 1983

(section 1 (3)). But, it can be stated that mental disorders resulting from use of or stopping use of

alcohol or drugs are considered as mental disorders. Furthermore, amendments were made to

section 1(3) Mental Health Act 1983 for removing the former exclusion according to which “an

individual was prevented from being considered as having a mental disorder only by reason of

promiscuity or other immoral conduct or sexual deviancy, as promiscuity and other immoral

conduct are not considered as mental disorders clinically”.


Decision to Prosecute

There is certain information and evidence required by the prosecutors related to any

mental health problems that should be provided at the earliest opportunity for ensuring that case

has been reviewed according to the Code of Crown Prosecutors. This information can be

obtained from the police that are liable for meeting the following responsibilities which have

been set out in Home Office Circular 12/95:

If the police is already aware of the condition of defendant and prognosis by the Social

Services, Probation Service, psychiatrists or other professionals, who may advocate a specific

approach or disposal, it is important for the advising agency to set out their opinions in writing.

“It is imperative for the police to provide a brief summary of their reasons that will assist

them to start proceedings or their views to determine whether the suspect should be prosecuted

or not”.

It is important to inform the CPS is the defendant has been seen by a psychiatrist or

whether arrangements were made for assessing him or her.

If the police is willing to release the defendant on unconditional bail on the basis that the

individual will be able to accept certain conditions for instance treatment or residence, but it is

essential that the bail period should be kept to a minimum. Furthermore, other informal

conditions need to be clearly defined under CPS file (Robinson & Crow, 2009).

Other than police there are also other sources from where an individual can obtain

information such as acquiring information from relatives, friends, or gaoler that can encourage

having further investigation. Often courts have developed certain schemes that can facilitate in

the process of assessing and providing constructive reports to the court. If any such scheme is


available, the offender is required to be referred to it for investigation. However, if any court

does not have any such scheme, prosecutors need to decide whether the available information is

sufficient enough for making decision (Shaw, Appleby & Baker, 2003). Any recent report

provided by psychiatrist, community psychiatric nurse or social worker can also be helpful for

understanding the mental disorder of the offender that will facilitate in deciding whether the

prosecution is in public interest. However, if the information is not up to date there is a need to

acquire further information. It is not necessary that the information regarding the mental state of

a defendant is presented in the statement form to be considered (Seymour & Rutherford, 2008).

But there is a need to ensure that the information is in written form and satisfactory and reliable

for the prosecutors to be used for taking decision based on it. All these information needs to be

included in the CPS file.

Sentencing Methodology

Considerable debate has been done during the 1970s and 1980s to determine the

appropriate sentencing methodology that should be applied to those offenders that are mentally

disabled. With the development in psychology a shift was experienced from moving away from

philosophy of incarceration as punishment to an increased emphasis on deinstitutionalisation and

treatment. This development was considered as being more humane to the individual and at the

same to be more beneficial for the community as a whole (Munro & Rumgay, 2000). But, it was

argued by some of the commentators that by emphasising more on treatment it will not

necessarily result in positive outcome for the offender. Thus, during this period most of the

literature was mainly emphasised on the merits of “Just deserts”, theory of punishment as


opposed to rehabilitation. Therefore, the following section explains the underlying ideology for

these two approaches (Mills, 2005a).

Just Deserts

As defined in the most simplistic form retribution is based on the premise that it is

necessary that an individual who inflict harm on others is ought to suffer a commensurate

penalty. However, it is important to notice that sentencing practices that are dependent on this

theory are criticised to a greater extent as they fail to examine the underlying causes of crime and

also are unable to deal appropriately with the offender’s personal circumstances including

deprived social background (Lyon, 2005).

A more modern view of this theory of retribution suggests that severity of the sanction

imposed needs to be commensurate or proportionate to seriousness of the crime or moral

culpability of the offender. This is considered as being of immense importance particularly when

the offender has certain mental disorder due to which the offender may not be considered being

culpable for his or her actions. Therefore, is such a situation mental disorder can be regarded as a

mitigating factor (Gagliardi, 2004).

Treatment-based Punishment

In comparison to the Just desert or punished based penalty, rehabilitation of reformation

is aimed at addressing factors that are considered to cause or likely to result in offending

behaviour and provides an alternative to conventional sentencing options. This can also be

considerably argued particularly related to mental health (Cullen, 1994). By being more focused

on treatment or rehabilitation there has been substantial decline in the proportionality in


sentencing. Rather than this with the rehabilitation approach it has been possible to sentence

offenders for longer periods. Furthermore, it can also be helpful for indeterminate sentences for

achieving therapeutic purposes. In addition to this, this approach can lead to hidden agenda of

sheer incapacitation that will force offenders to be treated without their willingness.

This approach is considered as being an efficient alternative to fixed term sentences. It is

possible for the offenders to be released earlier than they might otherwise be if they are able to

recover quickly or they may be detained for an indefinite period if it is predicted that they may

be dangerous in the future (Brooker, 2008). However, the logic presented forward for

rehabilitative sentencing that depicts that if the offender is failed to be treated successfully, that

person will be detained indefinitely, has not been approved at the common law.

Sentencing Mentally Disordered Offenders

As stated under the document of Improving Health and Support Justice (2009) the aim of

the government is to ensure and deliver effective mental health care that should be provided in

the most appropriate environment, whether it is in the Criminal Justice System or in a health

setting. “Lord Bradleys (2009)” has taken further this approach and has also focused on the

objective of Criminal Justice System to protect the public, reduce health inequalities and

reoffending and to ensure health improvement. In addition to this, the publication has also

emphasised on placing mentally disordered offenders in the “Criminal Justice System” instead of

determining an alternative. The document also highlights that mentally disordered offenders are

primarily those offenders that have certain mental health problems and therefore, does not

recognise them as have offended other because of their mental health problems.


As mentioned in the “Mental Health Act 2007” the provision for mentally disordered

offenders, that should be placed in a hospital at sentencing or even in prison after their

assessment, which has also been outlined in “the Criminal Justice Act 2003”. “Section 37”

requires mentally disordered offenders to be detained into a hospital at sentencing. Likewise this

“Section 37” another Section “45a of Mental Health Act, 2007” highlights that mentally

disordered offenders are need to be detained into a hospital during sentencing, but it also depicts

that the offender should be transferred back to prison from hospital. Consequently, “Sections 47

and 48 of the Mental Health Act 2007” allow for the offender to be transferred to a hospital. It is

essential to understand the “Mental Health Act, 2007” for this research as it provides guidelines

to determine the rights and treatment of the offenders. Furthermore, according to the Mental

Health Act, 2007 the offenders can be placed in care institutions instead of being placed in

prisons, this view has also been emphasised by Roskes et al. (1999); Bradley, (2009) and Torrey

(1993). But it is also importance to notice that this cannot be considered as an advisory document

as it only identifies the options that are currently available. A study was conducted by Stephens

and Knight (2009) to review the available literature on mentally disordered offenders that are in

the prison system and analysed the most appropriate institution to place such offenders.

According to their perception due to the conflicting objectives of NHS and Prison system has

resulting in neglecting mentally disordered offenders within prison service (Anthony &

McFadyen, 2005). They further suggested that in order to provide more appropriate treatment

and care and at the same time to ensure public protection a therapeutic community can be

developed. Despite that these are aimed at prison services, Stephens and Knight (2009)

suggested that prison services has not been sufficiently equipped to accomplish these objectives

for all the mentally disordered offenders as there is variations in individual characters, particular


illness, length of sentence and medical resources within the prison. But they highlighted that it is

impossible to have punishment and treatment in one system by following the example of

“Grendon Underwood (HMP)” (Bradely, 2009). In their point of view, with the help of

therapeutic and rehabilitation of mentally disordered offenders it will be possible to provide

assistance to prison service. This depicts that mentally disordered offenders can be exposed to

greater risk of receiving inappropriate treatment in prison, due to which they are likely to re-

offend (Cavindino, 1997). With the use of information provided by government bodies and also

from other researchers it will be possible to determine a rounded approach to the area.

Roskes et al. (1999) stated that there is high percentage of mental illness prevalence

amongst the prison population, which was also highlighted in the “Bradley Report (2009)” that

an estimated 78% of the male offenders and 64% of female offenders were found to have a

personality disorder. Roskes et al. (1999) also determined certain models that can be helpful for

providing efficient treatment to mentally disordered offenders within community by delivering

probation service. Furthermore a “novel collaborative approach” was also identified by them that

could be helpful for successfully providing treatment to mentally disordered offenders.

Law for Protecting the Public

A new law was introduced by the British government to deal with offenders who are

mentally disordered, as it indicated that the public should be protected from dangerous offenders.

Over the past 40 years, Judges and magistrates have discussed whether to send these offenders to

hospitals or to prison. However, as mentioned under “section 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983”

these orders are dependent on providing clinical evidence to ensure that the offender is suffering

from a mental disorder, which requires to have a necessary appropriate treatment in hospitals,


and according to the opinion of court it is the most appropriate disposal. Every year the court

makes an estimated 600 hospital orders in England. According to the “section 41” the judge is

allowed to restrict discharge for indefinite period in order to protect the public from serious

harm. On average there are approximately 250 cases every year that are being handed over the

psychiatrists for treatment and to home secretary for decisions on discharge. Although the mental

health review tribunal has the authority to discharge a restricted patient, but a psychiatrist is not

allowed to do so (Gagliardi, 2004). Furthermore, the approach of home secretary is considered as

one of a caution. In order to handle the most difficult cases of restricted patient he can be advised

by the advisory board. Criminal court does not play any role or does not have any responsibility

while making the hospital or restriction order, if the hospital fails to provide effective treatment

to patient, the patient cannot be sent to prison.

The view to provide a combination of treatment and punishment can be considered as

being contrary to the modern view of psychiatric care for those individuals with certain mental

illness. In the “Butler committee of 1975” this notion was regarded as “undesirable” according to

which it is important for the court to have a clear choice between both the options. However, in

1994 a working group considered a hybrid proposal of immense importance to judge’s powers

particularly that are relevant to mentally disordered offenders. It proposed certain principles that

were based on clinical and practical reasons (Gostin, 1983). Firstly, it is difficult to or uncertain

to have compulsory treatment of psychopathic offenders. Due to this there will be preventive

detention and psychiatrist will have to follow the role of jailers. Secondly, results of various

studies have shown that these patients are likely to reoffend at twice the rate of offenders that are

mentally ill. Often, psychiatrists are blamed for the behaviour of their patients, they are also

reluctant to provide treatment in those cases that are highly risk and are likely to fail. Therefore,


the court has enabled treatment, but trial judge has the responsibility to determine the length of

detention as it is justifiable for both patients and psychiatrists. However, later there was a frenzy

regarding law and order (Knight & Stephens, 2009). Hybrid order was seized by the government.

Restriction orders have resulted in having a respectable track record. Conditionally patients in

the community that were discharged and are restricted were likely to be involved in fewer

offences as compared to the generality of released prisoners; however, there were 5% of both

patients and life sentenced prisoners that were released between 1972 and 1985 were found to be

involved in serious offence within five years.

The Bradley Report

On April 30 a review of individuals having certain mental health issue or learning

disabilities in the Criminal Justice System was published. It is considered as being the most

significant report developed by the government in the current tenure. It has been highlighted in

the report that the number of people with mental health problems in prison have increased

rapidly than ever before. Although, it is essential to ensure public protection, but at the same

time it has also been suggested that prison might not be the appropriate environment for people

suffering with mental health problems. As a result of being in custody the mental ill health is

likely to exacerbate and can result in increasing the risk of self-harm or suicide.

Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA)

MAPPA can be defined as the arrangements for the responsible authorities in England

and Wales to deal with the sex offenders, violent and other types of sexual offenders and

offenders that are likely to impose the public to certain risk of harm. The authorities in the

MAPPA are National Probation Service, HM Prison Service and England and Wales Police


forces. The Public Protection Unit that is included within the “National Offender Management

Service” is likely to coordinate and support the MAPPA and have been introduced by the

“Criminal Justice and Courts Service Act 2000” (Lyon, 2005).

The Health and Criminal Justice Programme Board

The inner-department “Health and Criminal Justice Programme Board” was established

with the aim to work further on the recommendations provided under the Bradley report that was

developed for reviewing people with mental health issues or faced learning disabilities in the

Criminal Justice System. There were two deliverables that have been identified for the CPS

which are defined below and are included in “the Programme Board’s National Delivery Plan”:

To investigate the prosecutors’ role and their decision making regarding the cases that involve

people with mental health problems and those offenders that have certain learning disabilities.

Assessing the use of conditional cautions for mentally disordered offenders or learning

disabilities and provide appropriate guidance for advising agencies (Mills, 2005a).

The Code of Crown Prosecutors

In order to determine the CPs approach for charging and prosecuting mentally disordered

offenders the “Code for Crown Prosecutor” has been set out and also certain CPS guidance have

been developed to address the same problem. The 5th edition of this code was updated by

including new text to form 6th edition of the Code that was published in February 2010. In order

to make appropriate decision on whether an individual needs to be charged for the offence of not

and what the offence should be, it is important for the prosecutor to consider the “Code for

Crown Prosecutors” that should be read along with the Director’s Guidance on charging.


However, in the cases in which the police determine the charge that are considered as being less

complicated, they are bound to apply the same provisions (Knight & Stephens, 2009).

There are two stage of this code. Firstly, it is the evidential stage in which it is essential

for the prosecutor to be satisfied that sufficient evidence is available for providing a realistic

prospect of conviction against each defendant on each charge. This indicates that the jury or

magistrates or judge who is accordingly directed is more likely than not to convict the defendant

of the alleged charge. It is important to note that even any case fails the first stage, which is the

evidential stage it cannot proceed ahead, regardless of the importance or seriousness of the

offence (Lyon, 2005).

Next, it is the stage of public interest. After passing the evidential stage, the case is taken

to the second stage, where the prosecutor has the responsibility to decide if the prosecution is

needed in the public interest. The code has identified several public interest factors that can be

used for and against prosecution. It is imperative to evaluate each case based on its fact and

merits and prosecutors is liable to decide each public interest factor depending on the

circumstances of each case and after which an overall assessment of the public interest can be

made. For the factors concerning public interest according to the Code it is necessary that the

CPS should apply “Home Office” guidelines regarding handling mentally disordered offenders.

It is important that the prosecutors should balance the desirability to divert a defendant with

mental illness from CJS in order to protect the public (Mills, 2005b).

Guidance of CPS

The CPS guidance has been developed on ‘Mentally Disordered Offenders’ are used with

the Code, which are regularly updated to highlight any changes in the legislation, law and


practice. According to the guidance the offender’s mental disorder can be applied to decide

whether to prosecute or divert, fitness to plead, sentencing/ disposal. The CPS guidance mentions

that it is important to have a presumption regarding either in favour of or against the prosecution

of a mentally disordered offender (Prins, 1996). Therefore, along with the principles that have

been set out in the Code, it is imperative to analyse all the cases by evaluating its merits and

considering all the information related to any disorder and if it is relevant to the offence. The

CPS guidance is also focused on identifying the importance of acquiring information and

evidence related to the mental disorders at the earliest opportunity so that the case can be

reviewed according to the Code. Police is also accountable to a certain extent to provide this

information as highlighted under Home Office Circular (Robinson & Crow, 2009). However,

this information can also be obtained from various other sources. At the same time the

prosecutors also need to ensure that the information which is supplied is sufficient enough to

make decisions and also if the information is outdated.


CHAPTER THREE: Research Methodology

The purpose of this study is to examine the problems that may result from sentencing

offenders that have certain mental health issues. The study is aimed at investigating appropriate

laws that have been developed for sentencing mentally disordered offenders. The research

provides a detailed insight into the laws that are aimed at dealing with individuals who face

mental health problems and are have harmed or likely to harm others. In order to obtain data for

this research, the research has carried out both primary and secondary research to meet research

objectives (Seale, 1999). The study is based on conducting a qualitative analysis of the problems

that are associated with sentencing mentally ill offenders. The method for the collection of data

was secondary as well as primary in nature.

Qualitative Research

Qualitative study is conducted to gather an in-depth detail on the topic under study. It

enables the researcher to understand the why and how of decision making. Therefore, it is

essential for the researcher to ensure that the chosen sample is more focused rather than relying

on large samples. Qualitative research assists in examining issues and developing an

understanding of a given phenomenon (Seale, 1999). Qualitative researches are conducted with

an aim to achieve preliminary insights into opportunities in the environment and to address the

problems in decision making. Researches which are qualitative in nature help a researcher to

carry out a research in an economic way with a less cost. On the contrary the purpose of

carrying out quantitative research is to test hypothesis, analyse the cause and effects and make

appropriate predictions.


The data collected for the research can be in the form of qualitative or quantitative.

Quantitative data is presented in statistical or numerical form. However, it is difficult to interpret

and analyse quantitative data and requires qualitative information for effective analysis. On the

other hand qualitative data provides detailed information and underlying reason for human

behaviour. Therefore, with the help of qualitative data it is possible to understand the problems

that are faced for sentencing mentally disabled offenders (Shaw, Appleby & Baker, 2003). The

CPS guidance is thoroughly analysed for the study to understand the requirements for

prosecutors to make appropriate decisions regarding the sentencing of offenders with mental

illness. An explanation is provided in the study to understand the definition of mentally

disordered offenders according to the CPS and the Mental Health Act. Furthermore, an insight is

provided related to the law for sentencing the offenders with mental health problems (Seale,

1999). The research analysed Bradley Report and MAPPA that provide significant understanding

related to addressing the issues of mentally ill offenders. In order to acquire data for the research

both primary and secondary research were conducted.

Data Collection Method

There are various sources through which the researcher can collect or obtain information

for the matter under study, which include primary and secondary sources. The researcher carried

out a mixed research where both primary and secondary sources were used for acquiring data for

the research.


Secondary Research

Secondary research is carried out to collect data that has already been published and is

already available. However, secondary data is not conducted for addressing the research problem

and might be outdated. Therefore, it is important for the researcher to ensure that the data

obtained from secondary sources is the most up-to-date. Sources for collecting secondary

research include books, journals, and online libraries and so on (Healy & Perry, 2000). For this

research, the secondary data is obtained from already published articles and reports that are

aimed at addressing the problems associated with sentencing of mentally health offenders such

as the Lord Bradley report. Furthermore, past cases have been analysed to understand the risk of

harm imposed by mentally ill offenders and investigating the role of prosecutors. At the same

time the Mental Health Act 1983 and the information provided by the Crown Prosecution

Service regarding the sentencing of mentally disordered offenders. However, this would limit the

depth of the information that could be collected from primary research (Healy & Perry, 2000).

Therefore, the researcher has conducted interviews with the prosecutors to gather direct

information from the respondents.

Primary Research

Primary research is related to collecting field information or first-hand data. In order to

obtain primary data, the researcher can conduct interviews, surveys, observations or focus

groups. The researcher can either conduct structured or unstructured interview for collecting

primary data. In order to carry out structured interview the researcher prepares a set of questions

that will be used for interviewing the participants and facilitates in comparing the responses of

different individuals (Seale, 1999). However, for this study the researcher has conducted a semi-


structured interview with the prosecutor to analyse their views and perception regarding the

sentencing of mentally disordered offenders and the information needed by them to make

appropriate decisions. Semi-structured interviews facilitate in obtaining in-depth information and

through this the researcher can further probe into accessing details about the perception of the

prosecutor regarding sentencing of offenders with mental health problems and the likely

problems resulting from these decisions.

With the help of a semi-structured interview it is possible to obtain information related to

the decisions of sentencing individuals with mental illness and protecting the public. Interviews

enable the researcher to communicate and exchange information through questions and gathering

the responses of the participants. The key participants are people that acquire the necessary

information of the social situation that the researcher intends to examine. It is important to

establish relationship with the participants to avoid biasness of responses

Although, interviews enable the researcher to gather information directly from the

respondents; however, it is often time consuming and costly to carry out primary research. Thus,

it is essential to overcome the challenges of adopting primary research methodology (Healy &

Perry, 2000). The researcher also collected secondary data to support the findings with the

currently available literature and theories that are relevant to the problems of sentencing mentally

ill offenders. Appropriate law and standards were also analysed to understand the treatment for

people with mental health problems.

Reliability and Validity

The researcher has ensured that the data that is collected is valid and reliable. One of the

greatest concerns for the researcher was for participant to respond to questions as openly and


truthfully as might be possible, and that he would have a willingness to be transparent. While

collecting data for the research it is important to ensure that the collected information is reliable

and valid (Healy & Perry, 2000). For every research it is important to determine whether it

measures what the researcher intends to measure and whether following the same measurement

process would yield similar results, these two approaches can be understood as reliability and

validity of the data obtained from the research. Reliability is related to ensuring that the results of

the study are stable and consistent, whether using the same measure tool provides stable and

consistent results if repeated over time (Seale, 1999). On the contrary, validity is concerned with

making certain that the study measures what it is intended to measure. Hence, as this is

qualitative study; therefore, there is a need to ensure that the validity and reliability of the

information.

Ethical considerations

It is imperative for the researcher to ensure that the research is conducted by remaining

within ethical boundaries. The researcher needs to make certain that the information collected for

the research is not falsified or misrepresented. While collecting data for the research it is

essential that the researcher includes ethical considerations. Since, for this study the researcher

has carried out primary researcher by conducting interviews with the prosecutor; therefore, it is

essential to obtain informed consent that the respondent is willing to participate in the research

and provide information related to the research problem (Healy & Perry, 2000). Moreover, the

information collected from interview should not be falsified or misrepresented based on the

biasness of the interviewer. Furthermore, the data collected through primary research should not

be used for other purposes and confidentiality needs to be maintained. The information should


not be published without the permission of the concerned person. Ethics is an important

consideration in the process of undertaking a particular research. Two main ethical

considerations, which include responsibility towards human and non-human aspects involved in

the study. Secondly, the research study should adhere to discipline of research.

Justification of Research Instrument

In order to collect data for the research and to conduct interviews the researcher has

formulated a questionnaire to be used for the interview. The questionnaire comprises of 10

questions that can facilitate in understanding the views and opinions of the prosecutors in

relevance to the sentencing of the offenders with mental illness. Therefore, the research

instrument for this research was a structured questionnaire that facilitated in understanding

thoroughly the views regarding the problems of sentencing of offenders who are mentally ill.

Structured interview assisted the researcher to ask further questions followed by the responses of

the participants (Healy & Perry, 2000). The questionnaire included both open-ended and close-

ended questions that provided significant insight to the matter under study and facilitated in

meeting research objectives.

Rationale of the Study

The purpose of the study is to analyse and evaluated the problems that are associated with

sentencing mentally disordered offenders. In order to understand these problems it is important

to have a thorough qualitative analysis of the laws and standards that have been developed to

address these problems. Although, sufficient literature is available to determine the possible

problems resulting from the sentencing of the mentally ill offenders, but researchers have failed


to provide and determine the most appropriate method for handling offenders with certain mental

health issues (Shaw, Appleby & Baker, 2003). Therefore, the research is aimed at identifying the

most efficient approach whether to provide treatment or to punish them in the prison through

which the protection of the public can also be ensured. With the help of primary research it is

possible to obtain an insight into the matter under study and to acquire information that is related

to the research problem being addressed. The researcher analysed relevant cases that are

applicable to this research, and laws pertaining to the need of mentally ill offenders.


References

Anthony, D. & McFadyen, J. (2005) Mental Health Needs Assessment of Prisoners, Clinical

Effectiveness in Nursing, 9, 26-36

Brooker, C., Duggan, S., Fox, C., Mills, A. & Parsonage, M. (2008) Short-changed: Spending on

prison mental health care, The Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health: London

Cavindino, M. (1997). A Vindication of the Rights o Psychiatric Patients, Journal of Law and

Society, 24 (pp 235-51)

Cullen, E. (1994) ‘Grendon: the therapeutic prison that works’, Journal of Therapeutic

Communities, 15, 4: 301-10

Gagliardi, G., Lovell, D., Peterson, P., & Jemelka, R. (2004), Forecasting Recidivism in

Mentally Ill Offenders Released for Prison, Law and Human Behaviour, 28(2), 133-155

Gostin, L. (1983) Contemporary Social Historical Perspectives on Mental Health Reform

Journal of Law and Society 10 (pp47-70)

Knight, L. & Stephens, M. (2009), ‘Mentally disordered offenders in prison: a tale of neglect?’,

Internet Journal of Criminology

Lyon, J. (2005) Dialogue from speech quoted in Rickford, D. & Edgar, K. (eds) Troubled Inside:

Responding to The Mental Health Needs of Men in Prison. London: Prison Reform Trust

Mills, A. (2005a) ‘Mentally Vulnerable Adults in Prison: Policy and Provision’, in Littlechild, B.

& Fearns, D. (eds.) Mental disorder and criminal justice: Policy, provision and practice.

Russell House Publishing Ltd: Lyme Regis


Mills, A. (2005b) 'Great Expectations?: A Review of the Role of Prisoners Families, Selected

Papers from the British Society of Criminology Conference, Vol. 7, Portsmouth, 2004

Munro, E. and Rumgay, J. (2000) Role of risk assessment in reducing homicides by people with

mental illness, British Journal of Psychiatry, 176: 307-11

Prins, H. (1996) Can the Law Serve as the Solution to Social Ills? The case of the Mental Health

(Patients in the Community) Act 1995 Medicine, Science and Law, 36 (3) pp 217-20

Robinson, G. & Crow, I. (2009) Offender Rehabilitation: theory, research and practice, London:

Sage Publications Ltd.

Roskes, E., Feldman, R., Arrington, S. and Leisher, M. (1999) A Model Program for the

Treatment of Mentally Ill Offenders in the Community Community Mental Health

Journal, Vol. 35, No. 5. USA Human Science Press

Seymour, L. & Rutherford, M. (2008) The Community Order and the Mental Health Treatment

Requirement, London: Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health

Shaw, J. Appleby, L. and Baker, D. (2003) Safer Prisons, A National Study of Prison Suicides

1999-2000 by the National Confidential Inquiry into Suicide and Homicide by People

with Mental Illness, London: Stationery Office

Tribal, (2008), Financial support to the Bradley review, Bradley, Rt. Hon Lord (2009) ‘Lord

Bradley’s review of people with mental health problems or learning disabilities in the

criminal justice system: The Bradley Report’, 30 April 2009, Department of Health

Blummenthal, S. and Wessely, S. (1992). National Survey of Current Arrangements for

Diversion from Custody in England and Wales, British Medical Journal, 305 (pp 1322-5)

Seale, C. (1999). Quality in qualitative research, Qualitative Inquiry, 5(4), 465-478


Healy, M., & Perry, C. (2000), Comprehensive criteria to judge validity and reliability of

qualitative research within the realism paradigm, Qualitative Market Research, 3(3), 118-

126

mentally disordered offenders dduk-0114-80647656

Documents

mental health offenders

disordered offenders

disordered offenders

criminal justice process

criminal offence

certain mental health

mental health act

disordered offenders9law