Problems that arises with Sentencing Mentally Disordered Offenders

By
[Name of the Writer]
[Name of the Institution]
[Name of the Subject]
[Date]

Sentencing Mentally Disordered Offenders ii

Sentencing Mentally Disordered Offenders iii
Table of Contents
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................... 4
Defining and Understanding Mental Disorders .......................................................................... 5
Decision to Prosecute .................................................................................................................. 6
Sentencing Methodology ............................................................................................................ 7
Just Deserts ............................................................................................................................. 8
Treatment-based Punishment .................................................................................................. 8
Sentencing Mentally Disordered Offenders ................................................................................ 9
Law for Protecting the Public ................................................................................................... 11
The Bradley Report ................................................................................................................... 13
Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) ...................................................... 13
The Health and Criminal Justice Programme Board ................................................................ 14
The Code of Crown Prosecutors ............................................................................................... 14
Guidance of CPS ....................................................................................................................... 15
Qualitative Research ................................................................................................................. 17
Data Collection Method ............................................................................................................ 18
Secondary Research .............................................................................................................. 19
Primary Research .................................................................................................................. 19
Reliability and Validity ............................................................................................................. 20
Ethical considerations ............................................................................................................... 21
Justification of Research Instrument ......................................................................................... 22
Rationale of the Study ............................................................................................................... 22

Sentencing Mentally Disordered Offenders 4
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

The criminal justice system has not been able to address the problems associated with
mental health offenders. Criminal justice process is complex and it becomes even more
complicated when it is required to handle the issues of people with complex needs. Therefore,
there is a need to develop a matrix that would provide practical solution for facilitating and
addressing the issues of mentally disorder offenders (Shaw, Appleby & Baker, 2003). There has
been an increase in the cases when criminal justice system is called upon for dealing with
mentally ill persons that have been involved in infractions, crimes or are otherwise in need of
help. It has now become the responsibility of criminal justice system to ensure the quality of life
offenses including being loud or disruptive, loitering in front of a business etc. According to The
Sentencing (2002), there has been a substantial increase in number of mentally ill persons in the
criminal justice system. As suggested by Clark, Ricketts and McHugo (1999), Cooper, McLearen
and Zapf (2004) and McFarland et al. (1989) people that have certain mental health problems,
particularly that suffer severe problems are likely to come in frequent contact with police and
most of these individuals are arrested. Under mental health act mentally disordered offenders can
be defined as individuals those who come into contact with criminal justice system because they
have committed, or are suspected of committing a criminal offence, and who may be acutely or
chronically mentally ill. It also includes those in whom a degree of mental disturbance is
recognised, even though it may not be severe enough to bring it within criteria laid down by the
Mental Health Act 1983. The purpose of this research is to investigate the problems associated
with sentencing of these mentally disordered offenders. As a result of the Prison Service
focusing on punishment, control and security, there have been many problems to provide
effective and efficient care to mentally disordered offender. It is difficult for the mentally
Sentencing Mentally Disordered Offenders 5
disordered offenders to deal and cope with the prison culture (Seymour & Rutherford, 2008).
NHS and prison system have conflicting views regarding the treatment of mentally disordered
offenders, the emphasis has been to determine the punishment for the offence instead of treating
the mental disorders.

Defining and Understanding Mental Disorders
According to the Section 1(2) of Mental Health Act 2007 amended section 1(2) Mental
Health Act 1983, mental disorder is defined as any disability of the mind. Various other former
categories that defined mental disorder have abolished such as severe mental impairment, mental
illness, psychopathic disorder and mental illness, and there is only one definition that is being
applied throughout the Mental Health Act 1983. Some of the examples of mental disorders that
have been clinically recognised include personality disorders, eating disorders, autistic spectrum
disorders, mental illness including depression, bi polar disorder and schizophrenia and other
learning disabilities. Learning disability is defined as being in a stated of arrested or not having
completely developed mind that may also include significant impairment of intelligence and
social functioning (Prins, 1996). However, it is important to notice that being dependent on
alcohol or drugs is not considered as mental disorder as under the Mental Health Act 1983
(section 1 (3)). But, it can be stated that mental disorders resulting from use of or stopping use of
alcohol or drugs are considered as mental disorders. Furthermore, amendments were made to
section 1(3) Mental Health Act 1983 for removing the former exclusion according to which an
individual was prevented from being considered as having a mental disorder only by reason of
promiscuity or other immoral conduct or sexual deviancy, as promiscuity and other immoral
conduct are not considered as mental disorders clinically.
Sentencing Mentally Disordered Offenders 6

Decision to Prosecute
There is certain information and evidence required by the prosecutors related to any
mental health problems that should be provided at the earliest opportunity for ensuring that case
has been reviewed according to the Code of Crown Prosecutors. This information can be
obtained from the police that are liable for meeting the following responsibilities which have
been set out in Home Office Circular 12/95:
If the police is already aware of the condition of defendant and prognosis by the Social
Services, Probation Service, psychiatrists or other professionals, who may advocate a specific
approach or disposal, it is important for the advising agency to set out their opinions in writing.
It is imperative for the police to provide a brief summary of their reasons that will assist
them to start proceedings or their views to determine whether the suspect should be prosecuted
or not.
It is important to inform the CPS is the defendant has been seen by a psychiatrist or
whether arrangements were made for assessing him or her.
If the police is willing to release the defendant on unconditional bail on the basis that the
individual will be able to accept certain conditions for instance treatment or residence, but it is
essential that the bail period should be kept to a minimum. Furthermore, other informal
conditions need to be clearly defined under CPS file (Robinson & Crow, 2009).
Other than police there are also other sources from where an individual can obtain
information such as acquiring information from relatives, friends, or gaoler that can encourage
having further investigation. Often courts have developed certain schemes that can facilitate in
the process of assessing and providing constructive reports to the court. If any such scheme is
Sentencing Mentally Disordered Offenders 7
available, the offender is required to be referred to it for investigation. However, if any court
does not have any such scheme, prosecutors need to decide whether the available information is
sufficient enough for making decision (Shaw, Appleby & Baker, 2003). Any recent report
provided by psychiatrist, community psychiatric nurse or social worker can also be helpful for
understanding the mental disorder of the offender that will facilitate in deciding whether the
prosecution is in public interest. However, if the information is not up to date there is a need to
acquire further information. It is not necessary that the information regarding the mental state of
a defendant is presented in the statement form to be considered (Seymour & Rutherford, 2008).
But there is a need to ensure that the information is in written form and satisfactory and reliable
for the prosecutors to be used for taking decision based on it. All these information needs to be
included in the CPS file.

Sentencing Methodology
Considerable debate has been done during the 1970s and 1980s to determine the
appropriate sentencing methodology that should be applied to those offenders that are mentally
disabled. With the development in psychology a shift was experienced from moving away from
philosophy of incarceration as punishment to an increased emphasis on deinstitutionalisation and
treatment. This development was considered as being more humane to the individual and at the
same to be more beneficial for the community as a whole (Munro & Rumgay, 2000). But, it was
argued by some of the commentators that by emphasising more on treatment it will not
necessarily result in positive outcome for the offender. Thus, during this period most of the
literature was mainly emphasised on the merits of Just deserts, theory of punishment as
Sentencing Mentally Disordered Offenders 8
opposed to rehabilitation. Therefore, the following section explains the underlying ideology for
these two approaches (Mills, 2005a).

Just Deserts
As defined in the most simplistic form retribution is based on the premise that it is
necessary that an individual who inflict harm on others is ought to suffer a commensurate
penalty. However, it is important to notice that sentencing practices that are dependent on this
theory are criticised to a greater extent as they fail to examine the underlying causes of crime and
also are unable to deal appropriately with the offenders personal circumstances including
deprived social background (Lyon, 2005).
A more modern view of this theory of retribution suggests that severity of the sanction
imposed needs to be commensurate or proportionate to seriousness of the crime or moral
culpability of the offender. This is considered as being of immense importance particularly when
the offender has certain mental disorder due to which the offender may not be considered being
culpable for his or her actions. Therefore, is such a situation mental disorder can be regarded as a
mitigating factor (Gagliardi, 2004).

Treatment-based Punishment
In comparison to the Just desert or punished based penalty, rehabilitation of reformation
is aimed at addressing factors that are considered to cause or likely to result in offending
behaviour and provides an alternative to conventional sentencing options. This can also be
considerably argued particularly related to mental health (Cullen, 1994). By being more focused
on treatment or rehabilitation there has been substantial decline in the proportionality in
Sentencing Mentally Disordered Offenders 9
sentencing. Rather than this with the rehabilitation approach it has been possible to sentence
offenders for longer periods. Furthermore, it can also be helpful for indeterminate sentences for
achieving therapeutic purposes. In addition to this, this approach can lead to hidden agenda of
sheer incapacitation that will force offenders to be treated without their willingness.
This approach is considered as being an efficient alternative to fixed term sentences. It is
possible for the offenders to be released earlier than they might otherwise be if they are able to
recover quickly or they may be detained for an indefinite period if it is predicted that they may
be dangerous in the future (Brooker, 2008). However, the logic presented forward for
rehabilitative sentencing that depicts that if the offender is failed to be treated successfully, that
person will be detained indefinitely, has not been approved at the common law.

Sentencing Mentally Disordered Offenders
As stated under the document of Improving Health and Support Justice (2009) the aim of
the government is to ensure and deliver effective mental health care that should be provided in
the most appropriate environment, whether it is in the Criminal Justice System or in a health
setting. Lord Bradleys (2009) has taken further this approach and has also focused on the
objective of Criminal Justice System to protect the public, reduce health inequalities and
reoffending and to ensure health improvement. In addition to this, the publication has also
emphasised on placing mentally disordered offenders in the Criminal Justice System instead of
determining an alternative. The document also highlights that mentally disordered offenders are
primarily those offenders that have certain mental health problems and therefore, does not
recognise them as have offended other because of their mental health problems.
Sentencing Mentally Disordered Offenders 10
As mentioned in the Mental Health Act 2007 the provision for mentally disordered
offenders, that should be placed in a hospital at sentencing or even in prison after their
assessment, which has also been outlined in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Section 37
requires mentally disordered offenders to be detained into a hospital at sentencing. Likewise this
Section 37 another Section 45a of Mental Health Act, 2007 highlights that mentally
disordered offenders are need to be detained into a hospital during sentencing, but it also depicts
that the offender should be transferred back to prison from hospital. Consequently, Sections 47
and 48 of the Mental Health Act 2007 allow for the offender to be transferred to a hospital. It is
essential to understand the Mental Health Act, 2007 for this research as it provides guidelines
to determine the rights and treatment of the offenders. Furthermore, according to the Mental
Health Act, 2007 the offenders can be placed in care institutions instead of being placed in
prisons, this view has also been emphasised by Roskes et al. (1999); Bradley, (2009) and Torrey
(1993). But it is also importance to notice that this cannot be considered as an advisory document
as it only identifies the options that are currently available. A study was conducted by Stephens
and Knight (2009) to review the available literature on mentally disordered offenders that are in
the prison system and analysed the most appropriate institution to place such offenders.
According to their perception due to the conflicting objectives of NHS and Prison system has
resulting in neglecting mentally disordered offenders within prison service (Anthony &
McFadyen, 2005). They further suggested that in order to provide more appropriate treatment
and care and at the same time to ensure public protection a therapeutic community can be
developed. Despite that these are aimed at prison services, Stephens and Knight (2009)
suggested that prison services has not been sufficiently equipped to accomplish these objectives
for all the mentally disordered offenders as there is variations in individual characters, particular
Sentencing Mentally Disordered Offenders 11
illness, length of sentence and medical resources within the prison. But they highlighted that it is
impossible to have punishment and treatment in one system by following the example of
Grendon Underwood (HMP) (Bradely, 2009). In their point of view, with the help of
therapeutic and rehabilitation of mentally disordered offenders it will be possible to provide
assistance to prison service. This depicts that mentally disordered offenders can be exposed to
greater risk of receiving inappropriate treatment in prison, due to which they are likely to re-
offend (Cavindino, 1997). With the use of information provided by government bodies and also
from other researchers it will be possible to determine a rounded approach to the area.
Roskes et al. (1999) stated that there is high percentage of mental illness prevalence
amongst the prison population, which was also highlighted in the Bradley Report (2009) that
an estimated 78% of the male offenders and 64% of female offenders were found to have a
personality disorder. Roskes et al. (1999) also determined certain models that can be helpful for
providing efficient treatment to mentally disordered offenders within community by delivering
probation service. Furthermore a novel collaborative approach was also identified by them that
could be helpful for successfully providing treatment to mentally disordered offenders.

Law for Protecting the Public
A new law was introduced by the British government to deal with offenders who are
mentally disordered, as it indicated that the public should be protected from dangerous offenders.
Over the past 40 years, Judges and magistrates have discussed whether to send these offenders to
hospitals or to prison. However, as mentioned under section 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983
these orders are dependent on providing clinical evidence to ensure that the offender is suffering
from a mental disorder, which requires to have a necessary appropriate treatment in hospitals,
Sentencing Mentally Disordered Offenders 12
and according to the opinion of court it is the most appropriate disposal. Every year the court
makes an estimated 600 hospital orders in England. According to the section 41 the judge is
allowed to restrict discharge for indefinite period in order to protect the public from serious
harm. On average there are approximately 250 cases every year that are being handed over the
psychiatrists for treatment and to home secretary for decisions on discharge. Although the mental
health review tribunal has the authority to discharge a restricted patient, but a psychiatrist is not
allowed to do so (Gagliardi, 2004). Furthermore, the approach of home secretary is considered as
one of a caution. In order to handle the most difficult cases of restricted patient he can be advised
by the advisory board. Criminal court does not play any role or does not have any responsibility
while making the hospital or restriction order, if the hospital fails to provide effective treatment
to patient, the patient cannot be sent to prison.
The view to provide a combination of treatment and punishment can be considered as
being contrary to the modern view of psychiatric care for those individuals with certain mental
illness. In the Butler committee of 1975 this notion was regarded as undesirable according to
which it is important for the court to have a clear choice between both the options. However, in
1994 a working group considered a hybrid proposal of immense importance to judges powers
particularly that are relevant to mentally disordered offenders. It proposed certain principles that
were based on clinical and practical reasons (Gostin, 1983). Firstly, it is difficult to or uncertain
to have compulsory treatment of psychopathic offenders. Due to this there will be preventive
detention and psychiatrist will have to follow the role of jailers. Secondly, results of various
studies have shown that these patients are likely to reoffend at twice the rate of offenders that are
mentally ill. Often, psychiatrists are blamed for the behaviour of their patients, they are also
reluctant to provide treatment in those cases that are highly risk and are likely to fail. Therefore,
Sentencing Mentally Disordered Offenders 13
the court has enabled treatment, but trial judge has the responsibility to determine the length of
detention as it is justifiable for both patients and psychiatrists. However, later there was a frenzy
regarding law and order (Knight & Stephens, 2009). Hybrid order was seized by the government.
Restriction orders have resulted in having a respectable track record. Conditionally patients in
the community that were discharged and are restricted were likely to be involved in fewer
offences as compared to the generality of released prisoners; however, there were 5% of both
patients and life sentenced prisoners that were released between 1972 and 1985 were found to be
involved in serious offence within five years.

The Bradley Report
On April 30 a review of individuals having certain mental health issue or learning
disabilities in the Criminal Justice System was published. It is considered as being the most
significant report developed by the government in the current tenure. It has been highlighted in
the report that the number of people with mental health problems in prison have increased
rapidly than ever before. Although, it is essential to ensure public protection, but at the same
time it has also been suggested that prison might not be the appropriate environment for people
suffering with mental health problems. As a result of being in custody the mental ill health is
likely to exacerbate and can result in increasing the risk of self-harm or suicide.
Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA)
MAPPA can be defined as the arrangements for the responsible authorities in England
and Wales to deal with the sex offenders, violent and other types of sexual offenders and
offenders that are likely to impose the public to certain risk of harm. The authorities in the
MAPPA are National Probation Service, HM Prison Service and England and Wales Police
Sentencing Mentally Disordered Offenders 14
forces. The Public Protection Unit that is included within the National Offender Management
Service is likely to coordinate and support the MAPPA and have been introduced by the
Criminal Justice and Courts Service Act 2000 (Lyon, 2005).

The Health and Criminal J ustice Programme Board
The inner-department Health and Criminal Justice Programme Board was established
with the aim to work further on the recommendations provided under the Bradley report that was
developed for reviewing people with mental health issues or faced learning disabilities in the
Criminal Justice System. There were two deliverables that have been identified for the CPS
which are defined below and are included in the Programme Boards National Delivery Plan:
To investigate the prosecutors role and their decision making regarding the cases that involve
people with mental health problems and those offenders that have certain learning disabilities.
Assessing the use of conditional cautions for mentally disordered offenders or learning
disabilities and provide appropriate guidance for advising agencies (Mills, 2005a).

The Code of Crown Prosecutors
In order to determine the CPs approach for charging and prosecuting mentally disordered
offenders the Code for Crown Prosecutor has been set out and also certain CPS guidance have
been developed to address the same problem. The 5
th
edition of this code was updated by
including new text to form 6
th
edition of the Code that was published in February 2010. In order
to make appropriate decision on whether an individual needs to be charged for the offence of not
and what the offence should be, it is important for the prosecutor to consider the Code for
Crown Prosecutors that should be read along with the Directors Guidance on charging.
Sentencing Mentally Disordered Offenders 15
However, in the cases in which the police determine the charge that are considered as being less
complicated, they are bound to apply the same provisions (Knight & Stephens, 2009).
There are two stage of this code. Firstly, it is the evidential stage in which it is essential
for the prosecutor to be satisfied that sufficient evidence is available for providing a realistic
prospect of conviction against each defendant on each charge. This indicates that the jury or
magistrates or judge who is accordingly directed is more likely than not to convict the defendant
of the alleged charge. It is important to note that even any case fails the first stage, which is the
evidential stage it cannot proceed ahead, regardless of the importance or seriousness of the
offence (Lyon, 2005).
Next, it is the stage of public interest. After passing the evidential stage, the case is taken
to the second stage, where the prosecutor has the responsibility to decide if the prosecution is
needed in the public interest. The code has identified several public interest factors that can be
used for and against prosecution. It is imperative to evaluate each case based on its fact and
merits and prosecutors is liable to decide each public interest factor depending on the
circumstances of each case and after which an overall assessment of the public interest can be
made. For the factors concerning public interest according to the Code it is necessary that the
CPS should apply Home Office guidelines regarding handling mentally disordered offenders.
It is important that the prosecutors should balance the desirability to divert a defendant with
mental illness from CJS in order to protect the public (Mills, 2005b).

Guidance of CPS
The CPS guidance has been developed on Mentally Disordered Offenders are used with
the Code, which are regularly updated to highlight any changes in the legislation, law and
Sentencing Mentally Disordered Offenders 16
practice. According to the guidance the offenders mental disorder can be applied to decide
whether to prosecute or divert, fitness to plead, sentencing/ disposal. The CPS guidance mentions
that it is important to have a presumption regarding either in favour of or against the prosecution
of a mentally disordered offender (Prins, 1996). Therefore, along with the principles that have
been set out in the Code, it is imperative to analyse all the cases by evaluating its merits and
considering all the information related to any disorder and if it is relevant to the offence. The
CPS guidance is also focused on identifying the importance of acquiring information and
evidence related to the mental disorders at the earliest opportunity so that the case can be
reviewed according to the Code. Police is also accountable to a certain extent to provide this
information as highlighted under Home Office Circular (Robinson & Crow, 2009). However,
this information can also be obtained from various other sources. At the same time the
prosecutors also need to ensure that the information which is supplied is sufficient enough to
make decisions and also if the information is outdated.



Sentencing Mentally Disordered Offenders 17
CHAPTER THREE: Research Methodology
The purpose of this study is to examine the problems that may result from sentencing
offenders that have certain mental health issues. The study is aimed at investigating appropriate
laws that have been developed for sentencing mentally disordered offenders. The research
provides a detailed insight into the laws that are aimed at dealing with individuals who face
mental health problems and are have harmed or likely to harm others. In order to obtain data for
this research, the research has carried out both primary and secondary research to meet research
objectives (Seale, 1999). The study is based on conducting a qualitative analysis of the problems
that are associated with sentencing mentally ill offenders. The method for the collection of data
was secondary as well as primary in nature.

Qualitative Research
Qualitative study is conducted to gather an in-depth detail on the topic under study. It
enables the researcher to understand the why and how of decision making. Therefore, it is
essential for the researcher to ensure that the chosen sample is more focused rather than relying
on large samples. Qualitative research assists in examining issues and developing an
understanding of a given phenomenon (Seale, 1999). Qualitative researches are conducted with
an aim to achieve preliminary insights into opportunities in the environment and to address the
problems in decision making. Researches which are qualitative in nature help a researcher to
carry out a research in an economic way with a less cost. On the contrary the purpose of
carrying out quantitative research is to test hypothesis, analyse the cause and effects and make
appropriate predictions.
Sentencing Mentally Disordered Offenders 18
The data collected for the research can be in the form of qualitative or quantitative.
Quantitative data is presented in statistical or numerical form. However, it is difficult to interpret
and analyse quantitative data and requires qualitative information for effective analysis. On the
other hand qualitative data provides detailed information and underlying reason for human
behaviour. Therefore, with the help of qualitative data it is possible to understand the problems
that are faced for sentencing mentally disabled offenders (Shaw, Appleby & Baker, 2003). The
CPS guidance is thoroughly analysed for the study to understand the requirements for
prosecutors to make appropriate decisions regarding the sentencing of offenders with mental
illness. An explanation is provided in the study to understand the definition of mentally
disordered offenders according to the CPS and the Mental Health Act. Furthermore, an insight is
provided related to the law for sentencing the offenders with mental health problems (Seale,
1999). The research analysed Bradley Report and MAPPA that provide significant understanding
related to addressing the issues of mentally ill offenders. In order to acquire data for the research
both primary and secondary research were conducted.

Data Collection Method
There are various sources through which the researcher can collect or obtain information
for the matter under study, which include primary and secondary sources. The researcher carried
out a mixed research where both primary and secondary sources were used for acquiring data for
the research.

Sentencing Mentally Disordered Offenders 19
Secondary Research
Secondary research is carried out to collect data that has already been published and is
already available. However, secondary data is not conducted for addressing the research problem
and might be outdated. Therefore, it is important for the researcher to ensure that the data
obtained from secondary sources is the most up-to-date. Sources for collecting secondary
research include books, journals, and online libraries and so on (Healy & Perry, 2000). For this
research, the secondary data is obtained from already published articles and reports that are
aimed at addressing the problems associated with sentencing of mentally health offenders such
as the Lord Bradley report. Furthermore, past cases have been analysed to understand the risk of
harm imposed by mentally ill offenders and investigating the role of prosecutors. At the same
time the Mental Health Act 1983 and the information provided by the Crown Prosecution
Service regarding the sentencing of mentally disordered offenders. However, this would limit the
depth of the information that could be collected from primary research (Healy & Perry, 2000).
Therefore, the researcher has conducted interviews with the prosecutors to gather direct
information from the respondents.

Primary Research
Primary research is related to collecting field information or first-hand data. In order to
obtain primary data, the researcher can conduct interviews, surveys, observations or focus
groups. The researcher can either conduct structured or unstructured interview for collecting
primary data. In order to carry out structured interview the researcher prepares a set of questions
that will be used for interviewing the participants and facilitates in comparing the responses of
different individuals (Seale, 1999). However, for this study the researcher has conducted a semi-
Sentencing Mentally Disordered Offenders 20
structured interview with the prosecutor to analyse their views and perception regarding the
sentencing of mentally disordered offenders and the information needed by them to make
appropriate decisions. Semi-structured interviews facilitate in obtaining in-depth information and
through this the researcher can further probe into accessing details about the perception of the
prosecutor regarding sentencing of offenders with mental health problems and the likely
problems resulting from these decisions.
With the help of a semi-structured interview it is possible to obtain information related to
the decisions of sentencing individuals with mental illness and protecting the public. Interviews
enable the researcher to communicate and exchange information through questions and gathering
the responses of the participants. The key participants are people that acquire the necessary
information of the social situation that the researcher intends to examine. It is important to
establish relationship with the participants to avoid biasness of responses
Although, interviews enable the researcher to gather information directly from the
respondents; however, it is often time consuming and costly to carry out primary research. Thus,
it is essential to overcome the challenges of adopting primary research methodology (Healy &
Perry, 2000). The researcher also collected secondary data to support the findings with the
currently available literature and theories that are relevant to the problems of sentencing mentally
ill offenders. Appropriate law and standards were also analysed to understand the treatment for
people with mental health problems.

Reliability and Validity
The researcher has ensured that the data that is collected is valid and reliable. One of the
greatest concerns for the researcher was for participant to respond to questions as openly and
Sentencing Mentally Disordered Offenders 21
truthfully as might be possible, and that he would have a willingness to be transparent. While
collecting data for the research it is important to ensure that the collected information is reliable
and valid (Healy & Perry, 2000). For every research it is important to determine whether it
measures what the researcher intends to measure and whether following the same measurement
process would yield similar results, these two approaches can be understood as reliability and
validity of the data obtained from the research. Reliability is related to ensuring that the results of
the study are stable and consistent, whether using the same measure tool provides stable and
consistent results if repeated over time (Seale, 1999). On the contrary, validity is concerned with
making certain that the study measures what it is intended to measure. Hence, as this is
qualitative study; therefore, there is a need to ensure that the validity and reliability of the
information.

Ethical considerations
It is imperative for the researcher to ensure that the research is conducted by remaining
within ethical boundaries. The researcher needs to make certain that the information collected for
the research is not falsified or misrepresented. While collecting data for the research it is
essential that the researcher includes ethical considerations. Since, for this study the researcher
has carried out primary researcher by conducting interviews with the prosecutor; therefore, it is
essential to obtain informed consent that the respondent is willing to participate in the research
and provide information related to the research problem (Healy & Perry, 2000). Moreover, the
information collected from interview should not be falsified or misrepresented based on the
biasness of the interviewer. Furthermore, the data collected through primary research should not
be used for other purposes and confidentiality needs to be maintained. The information should
Sentencing Mentally Disordered Offenders 22
not be published without the permission of the concerned person. Ethics is an important
consideration in the process of undertaking a particular research. Two main ethical
considerations, which include responsibility towards human and non-human aspects involved in
the study. Secondly, the research study should adhere to discipline of research.

J ustification of Research I nstrument
In order to collect data for the research and to conduct interviews the researcher has
formulated a questionnaire to be used for the interview. The questionnaire comprises of 10
questions that can facilitate in understanding the views and opinions of the prosecutors in
relevance to the sentencing of the offenders with mental illness. Therefore, the research
instrument for this research was a structured questionnaire that facilitated in understanding
thoroughly the views regarding the problems of sentencing of offenders who are mentally ill.
Structured interview assisted the researcher to ask further questions followed by the responses of
the participants (Healy & Perry, 2000). The questionnaire included both open-ended and close-
ended questions that provided significant insight to the matter under study and facilitated in
meeting research objectives.

Rationale of the Study
The purpose of the study is to analyse and evaluated the problems that are associated with
sentencing mentally disordered offenders. In order to understand these problems it is important
to have a thorough qualitative analysis of the laws and standards that have been developed to
address these problems. Although, sufficient literature is available to determine the possible
problems resulting from the sentencing of the mentally ill offenders, but researchers have failed
Sentencing Mentally Disordered Offenders 23
to provide and determine the most appropriate method for handling offenders with certain mental
health issues (Shaw, Appleby & Baker, 2003). Therefore, the research is aimed at identifying the
most efficient approach whether to provide treatment or to punish them in the prison through
which the protection of the public can also be ensured. With the help of primary research it is
possible to obtain an insight into the matter under study and to acquire information that is related
to the research problem being addressed. The researcher analysed relevant cases that are
applicable to this research, and laws pertaining to the need of mentally ill offenders.
Sentencing Mentally Disordered Offenders 24
References

Anthony, D. & McFadyen, J. (2005) Mental Health Needs Assessment of Prisoners, Clinical
Effectiveness in Nursing, 9, 26-36
Brooker, C., Duggan, S., Fox, C., Mills, A. & Parsonage, M. (2008) Short-changed: Spending on
prison mental health care, The Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health: London
Cavindino, M. (1997). A Vindication of the Rights o Psychiatric Patients, Journal of Law and
Society, 24 (pp 235-51)

Cullen, E. (1994) Grendon: the therapeutic prison that works, Journal of Therapeutic
Communities, 15, 4: 301-10
Gagliardi, G., Lovell, D., Peterson, P., & Jemelka, R. (2004), Forecasting Recidivism in
Mentally Ill Offenders Released for Prison, Law and Human Behaviour, 28(2), 133-155
Gostin, L. (1983) Contemporary Social Historical Perspectives on Mental Health Reform
Journal of Law and Society 10 (pp47-70)
Knight, L. & Stephens, M. (2009), Mentally disordered offenders in prison: a tale of neglect?,
Internet Journal of Criminology
Lyon, J. (2005) Dialogue from speech quoted in Rickford, D. & Edgar, K. (eds) Troubled Inside:
Responding to The Mental Health Needs of Men in Prison. London: Prison Reform Trust
Mills, A. (2005a) Mentally Vulnerable Adults in Prison: Policy and Provision, in Littlechild, B.
& Fearns, D. (eds.) Mental disorder and criminal justice: Policy, provision and practice.
Russell House Publishing Ltd: Lyme Regis
Sentencing Mentally Disordered Offenders 25
Mills, A. (2005b) 'Great Expectations?: A Review of the Role of Prisoners Families, Selected
Papers from the British Society of Criminology Conference, Vol. 7, Portsmouth, 2004
Munro, E. and Rumgay, J. (2000) Role of risk assessment in reducing homicides by people with
mental illness, British Journal of Psychiatry, 176: 307-11
Prins, H. (1996) Can the Law Serve as the Solution to Social Ills? The case of the Mental Health
(Patients in the Community) Act 1995 Medicine, Science and Law, 36 (3) pp 217-20
Robinson, G. & Crow, I. (2009) Offender Rehabilitation: theory, research and practice, London:
Sage Publications Ltd.
Roskes, E., Feldman, R., Arrington, S. and Leisher, M. (1999) A Model Program for the
Treatment of Mentally Ill Offenders in the Community Community Mental Health
Journal, Vol. 35, No. 5. USA Human Science Press
Seymour, L. & Rutherford, M. (2008) The Community Order and the Mental Health Treatment
Requirement, London: Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health
Shaw, J. Appleby, L. and Baker, D. (2003) Safer Prisons, A National Study of Prison Suicides
1999-2000 by the National Confidential Inquiry into Suicide and Homicide by People
with Mental Illness, London: Stationery Office
Tribal, (2008), Financial support to the Bradley review, Bradley, Rt. Hon Lord (2009) Lord
Bradleys review of people with mental health problems or learning disabilities in the
criminal justice system: The Bradley Report, 30 April 2009, Department of Health
Blummenthal, S. and Wessely, S. (1992). National Survey of Current Arrangements for
Diversion from Custody in England and Wales, British Medical Journal, 305 (pp 1322-5)
Seale, C. (1999). Quality in qualitative research, Qualitative Inquiry, 5(4), 465-478
Sentencing Mentally Disordered Offenders 26
Healy, M., & Perry, C. (2000), Comprehensive criteria to judge validity and reliability of
qualitative research within the realism paradigm, Qualitative Market Research, 3(3), 118-
126