Although the public is aware of OCD, the extent of its potential relentlessness and impairment of its functioning is not as well appreciated.111 This is likely to be reflected in the legal environment. There is a need to combine continuing legal education, including legal training, on obsessive-compulsive disorder and OCPD in the context of their common comorbidities, and the provision of educational, counterintuitive, case-specific expert evidence by experienced forensic psychiatrists with special knowledge of the disorders. In the world of criminal justice, theoretically can be a possible defence against certain crimes committed by the mentally ill; However, courts, prosecutors, police, jurors and the public rarely accept the defence. The criminal justice system deals with the identification, prosecution, arrest, trial and sentencing of those responsible for such crimes, as well as detention or detention, not assistance to the mentally ill. In the criminal justice system, lawyers who represent these unfortunate souls face a variety of challenges. First, the public often has erroneous opinions about mental illness. Unfortunately, some believe that mental illness is exaggerated or doesn`t really exist, that the mentally ill can control their actions like any normal person, or that people “fake” mental illness to avoid jail. The law requires a person with mental illness to announce in advance that he or she has a mental illness and allows the state to have the person examined by its psychologists or experts. These state-paid experts typically determine that the person may have a serious mental illness, may not be legally mentally ill, or may not be affected by reduced performance. In addition, the person with mental illness often does not have the means to hire a competent forensic psychiatrist to confront the state expert. Too often, the person with mental illness is convicted by a criminal court through a system that they do not understand and cannot treat or understand. In short, he or she is thrown victim to wolves. Treatment is a by-product of the criminal justice system.
Politically, the mentally ill population has little power and few friends, and therefore functions poorly when budgets are established and funds approved. At sentencing, a report from a licensed clinical psychologist revealed that Evans` daughter had reported signs of obsessive anxiety to him for the past 20 years. Evans` psychological tests revealed severe levels of obsessive-compulsive disorder as well as clinically significant anxiety and depression. It was also noted that he suffered from a deep level of distrust of others, not because of his arrest, but because of the long-term impact of unresolved security concerns. The psychologist was of the opinion: to receive minimal treatment, the reality for too many patents of the mentally ill is that they must commit a crime or a crime. Treatment – as it is – often takes place in a prison or prison, places that are not ideal for treating these devastating diseases. Although estimates vary widely, observers report that between 1 in 6 and 1 in 2 inmates suffer from some form of mental illness, sometimes exacerbated by dependence on illicit drugs or alcohol. The Appellant`s actions are so incompatible with a parent`s natural concern to protect their children that we must carefully consider whether it can be a consequence of mental illness without insanity, which can be considered a reduction in her guilt. We find no significant support in the reports that the complainant`s mental state may be the cause of the offence in a manner that mitigates the culpability of the offence. There is not enough basis to conclude that the disturbed thought processes culminating in this insult are the result of impaired mental functioning caused by psychiatric or mental disorders.
The trial judge, who had ample opportunity to observe the applicant, considered that this was not the case.