Are all developed countries exactly the same?

[black.hawk]

Are all these countries the same in terms of making presumed connection between criminal offences and the medical conditions of those who have been convicted, such as Schizophrenia?

Is the diagnosis of schizophrenia relevant to the offence committed?

 

[Radagast]

Are all these countries the same in terms of making presumed connection between criminal offences and the medical conditions of those who have been convicted, such as Schizophrenia?

No. The English-speaking countries are broadly similar, however.

The UK, for example, recognises mental illnesses such as personality disorders, autistic spectrum disorders, depression, bi polar disorder, and schizophrenia. Expert advice on the severity of the condition is important, however.

Individuals with severe mental illnesses will typically not be prosecuted, but will rather be conditionally cautioned ("we won't charge you if you promise to be treated") or diverted to a psychiatric treatment facility.

 

[black.hawk]

No. The English-speaking countries are broadly similar, however.

The UK, for example, recognises mental illnesses such as personality disorders, autistic spectrum disorders, depression, bi polar disorder, and schizophrenia. Expert advice on the severity of the condition is important, however.

Individuals with severe mental illnesses will typically not be prosecuted, but will rather be conditionally cautioned ("we won't charge you if you promise to be treated") or diverted to a psychiatric treatment facility.

By mere "recognition" of mental illnesses you are suggesting that "one size fits all", in such a way that "every offence is invariably caused by mental illness" - Which is premised on a fallacy, since one cannot presume that "All offences invariably have mental illnesses as the underlying cause" (Regardless of the accused being diagnosed with such a condition).

Therefore, it's wrong to make the connection in every case, whenever the offence has been committed; since we cannot presume that every offence is caused by mental illness - Notwithstanding, the accused has been diagnosed with such illness.

Presumably, you seem to think it would be far better for the accused to opt for treatment - By playing stupid, and thereby complicit with so called "experts", in order to fabricate a false report (alibi), which is based on so called "mental illness" as the purported, underlying, root cause (of the offence) - Simply to avoid a harsher sentence and criminal conviction?

Lastly, do we suppose that "the end would somehow justify the means", so it would still be okay for the Probation Service or the Mental Health Team to tell a "white lie", simply to elicit cooperation by the accused?

Is telling lies one of the tools of the trade (Presupposing that you have insider knowledge about such organizations)?

 

[Radagast]

By mere "recognition" of mental illnesses you are suggesting that "one size fits all", in such a way that "every offence is invariably caused by mental illness" - Which is premised on a fallacy, since one cannot presume that "All offences invariably have mental illnesses as the underlying cause"

I suggested no such thing. I think you misread my post.

since we cannot presume that every offence is caused by mental illness

AFAIK, in no country does the law presume this.

Presumably, you seem to think it would be far better for the accused to opt for treatment

I implied nothing of the sort. I simply stated that a "conditional caution" was one of the options within the UK justice system.

Lastly, do we suppose that "the end would somehow justify the means", so it would still be okay for the Probation Service or the Mental Health Team to tell a "white lie", simply to elicit cooperation by the accused?

I have no idea where that came from.

 

[black.hawk]

Individuals with severe mental illnesses will typically not be prosecuted, but will rather be conditionally cautioned ("we won't charge you if you promise to be treated") or diverted to a psychiatric treatment facility.

As you say, this can only happen by consent of the Accused, but they can't force you to undergo psychiatric treatment, no matter what the diagnosis.

Besides, such diagnosis can only be made if they agreed to work with the Mental Health Team, but you have the right to refuse contact with them.

 

[Zoii]

Are all these countries the same in terms of making presumed connection between criminal offences and the medical conditions of those who have been convicted, such as Schizophrenia?

Is the diagnosis of schizophrenia relevant to the offence committed?

In Australia the mental illness you have is not the predominant issue; rather its whether you were mentally competent when you committed the crime and if you were then your held accountable. If you weren't then your still held accountable but not criminally - rather the individual is regarded as a forensics psychiatric case and managed accordingly within an appropriate institution until the requisite management renders the individual safe to live in the community.

 

[Arcangl86]

In the American legal system "mental disease or defect" is an affirmative defense. In other words you need to assert that the crime was the result of mental illness severe enough to make it incapable of having the requite mental state. It's a very very high bar to to meet though.