For too long, the role of mental health in the courtroom was somewhat subdued, even when it looked like it wasn’t. While mental health assessments existed as far back as ancient Greece and Rome, their understanding of mental health nuances was, to say the least, rudimentary.
In recent decades, mental health evaluations and assessments have become a cornerstone of legal practice. If you’re curious about why, when, and how this shift occurred, today’s article is for you. We’ll explore how mental health assessments influence court outcomes and how these practices have evolved throughout history. Stay tuned!
A brief history of mental health evaluation in the court
Let’s take a closer look at how it all began and how the perception of mental illness as a factor in court cases has evolved over the last two and a half millennia.
Mental health and law: the ancient edition
Contrary to what some might assume, mental health wasn’t overlooked in the courtroom in ancient Rome. Romans recognized that mental disorders could impair a person’s legal judgment; they’ve coined terms like demens (“out of one’s mind”) and non compos mentis (“of unsound mind”, also used in 17th-century English law to label those with impaired reasoning) to describe those affected.
During ancient times, people with serious mental issues often didn’t survive to adulthood, and those who did were treated like minors; they were exempt from criminal responsibility (fun fact: Archelaus, the client king of Cappadocia during emperor Augustus’s reign, was spared execution due to his proven mental incompetence).
From the Middle Ages through the 19th century
Spanning from the Middle Ages to the 19th century, the legal concept of insanity evolved in many ways; here, we’ll outline the most important facts.
In the 13th century (more precisely, in 1256), English common law introduced the so-called “wild beast” test: put simply, it deemed a person insane if their understanding was as limited as that of a wild beast. By the 18th and 19th centuries, this concept became more formalized with the M’Naghten Rule of 1843 (adopted in the UK and several US states at the time). This rule established that a defendant could be considered legally insane if they didn’t understand the nature of their actions or knew they were wrong due to a mental disorder.
20th Century and Beyond
During the 20th century, the understanding of mental health in legal contexts expanded greatly: we’ve seen some groundbreaking developments that shaped modern jurisprudence. The concept of competency to stand trial emerged as a big issue; it ensured that defendants were mentally capable of participating in their defense – a standard solidified by landmark cases like Dusky v. United States in 1960. Milton Dusky, who had schizophrenia, was initially found competent to stand trial for serious charges. The US Supreme Court later ruled he should’ve been assessed for competency. Thus, new standards were set. The ruling clarified that a simple mental status exam isn’t enough, influencing how competency is assessed and impacting later decisions on self-representation and competency standards.
How Mental Health Assessments Influence Court Outcomes
In recent times, the legal system began to recognize a broader spectrum of mental health issues, not just insanity, influencing decisions at various stages of the legal process. This brings us to the heart of our discussion.
What is a mental health assessment in our day and age?
According to WebMD, a mental health assessment is defined as when a professional (a doctor, psychologist, or psychiatrist) evaluates whether someone has a mental health issue and what treatment might help them. The process of testing typically includes verbal questions, physical tests, and a questionnaire. It’s able to influence court outcomes in numerous ways; it can evaluate whether the person is fit to stand trial or assess the defendant’s mental capacity and state during the alleged offense, thus ensuring a fair process. But let’s expand!
Determining fitness to stand trial
To determine whether an accused person is mentally competent to stand trial, courts frequently demand a mental health evaluation. The main focus of this assessment will be on the person’s ability to grasp the charges against them, the trial procedure, and how to successfully communicate with their legal team. It’s an important step toward ensuring the trial is handled fairly and that the defendant can participate in their defense.
Assessing mental state at the time of the offense
A psychiatric assessment may also be ordered to figure out whether the defendant was suffering from a mental illness that impacted their ability to form the necessary intent for the crime they’re charged with. This kind of assessment is particularly important when the defense argues that the accused was actually not fully responsible for their actions due to their mental state at the given moment; it explores whether their illness could’ve impaired their judgment or intent.
Evaluating mental health for sentencing
During sentencing, the court (or involved parties) might request a mental health assessment to better understand the accused person’s mental state. This evaluation looks at the individual’s mental health history, their current condition, and whether there are any necessities in terms of treatment. It helps inform the court about how mental health factors might influence the sentencing decision and ensure appropriate measures are taken for rehabilitation or support.
Conclusion
Mental health evaluations are essential to the legal process because they guarantee equality and justice for all parties involved. They achieve this by offering details on the defendant’s mental condition at the time of the offense and the trial. These evaluations also aid in determining their capacity to comprehend the allegations made against them, responsibly take part in their defense, and make defensible choices. Overall, now that we see how mental health assessments influence court outcomes, it becomes quite clear why integrating mental health evaluations into the legal system is valuable.
Author’s BIO:
Lauren Barry is a licensed, EMDR-approved marriage and family therapist from Boca Raton, FL. She is the National Director Of Quality Assurance at We Level Up Treatment Centers. However, she always makes time to write articles that help improve the lives of people with mental health issues.
