Just Deserts for the Mad

• NCJ Number: 83828
• Author(s): I Potas
• Date Published: 1982
• Length: 234 pages
• Corporate Author: Australian Institute of Criminology
• Sale Source: Australian Institute of Criminology; National Institute of Justice/
• Language: English
• Country: Australia

Annotation

The text examines sentencing practices, particularly in the Australian Capital Territory, regarding mentally disordered offenders and suggests that alternatives (based on a just deserts approach) to the current options of incarceration or conditional release are needed.

Abstract

Contending that both the community and the judiciary have developed false and unrealistic expectations of the criminal justice system's ability to protect society through sentencing policies, the author suggests the need for limits against unnecessarily harsh punishments. Existing laws dealing with mentally disordered offenders are grossly inadequate, particularly when treatment rather than punishment appears to be the most appropriate response. In the Australian Capital Territory, a judge can either sentence a mentally disordered offender to imprisonment (coupled with a recommendation that the offender receive psychiatric treatment while in prison), or issue a conditional release order for the offender's treatment in the community as an out-patient. Instead, the mentally disordered offender should be sentenced to receive help in a psychiatric institution rather than in a conventional prison. Punishment should be commensurate with the offense, and the least restrictive treatment should be offered applicable to the circumstances of each case. This view of just deserts promotes a uniform sentencing approach by focusing on the degree of culpability of the offender, giving due regard to subjective considerations. The book touches on procedural law, covering such topics as unfitness to plead and the insanity defense. It refers to the problems of providing treatment to offenders and adequate facilities to accommodate forensic patients. Reference is also made to civil commitment procedures in an effort to explore the relationship of punitive to nonpunitive modes of disposal. The laws of Queensland and Tasmania, which provide hospital commitment orders in lieu of imprisonment, are reviewed, as is the trend toward community treatment. Footnotes, an index, a table of cases, and illustrations are provided.