Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Mentally Ill & Punishment. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
A 3 page research paper/essay that examines the rationale behind punishment within the legal system and how this rationale applies to the mentally ill. In the United States system of jurisprudence, a person may not be held accountable for illegal actions that the individual commits if it can be determined that this person is mentally ill to the point that he or she can be determined to be legally incompetent of standing trial. Bibliography lists 2 sources.
Page Count:
3 pages (~225 words per page)
File: D0_khpunill.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
person is mentally ill to the point that he or she can be determined to be legally incompetent of standing trial. However, before examining the legal philosophy behind what constitutes
competency, it is first necessary to establish the philosophy that justifies punishment in the first place. Legal punishment entails inflicting deprivations on individuals by persons in authority that are
generally similar to those crimes that the individual committed, that is, fines are analogous to theft; imprisonment to kidnapping (Honderich, et al 732). Therefore, legal theorists have always recognized that
justification for punishment is required. Justification for legal punishments is generally established via extrinsic, that is, consequential, considerations or by reference to intrinsic (retributive) factors (Honderich, et al 732).
Consequential considerations are usually cited when discussing the benefits that are conferred on society -- that is, family, organizations, civil polity -- by the institution of punishment, which provides a
powerful incentive to obey the law (Honderich, et al 732). The rationale being that citizens will not break the law because of the negative consequences inherent in legal prosecution. The
retributive rationale states that justice requires inflicting "harm on wrongdoers" (Honderich, et al 732). Whether or not such a principle can be defended against alternative (typically consequential) principles continues to
be debated. However, returning to the consequentialist rationale, inherent in this justification of punishment is that a system of justice is in place that also incorporates appropriate constraints on
that system so that sentencing and punishment is applied justly and fairly in individual cases (Honderich, et al 732). Central to this concept is that the defendant is found innocent
or guilty based on suitable evidence that is considered in an unbiased manner. When the system of justice is understood in this manner, it is, by necessity, backward-looking as it
...