Mental disability and mental illness are some of the most polarizing issues in today’s society, despite their constant appearance and prominence in most people. These disabilities have such a strong effect on how people act, influencing day-to-day decisions and important choices that are made. Some of these important choices are whether or not to take someone’s life, whether or not to steal something, or whether or not to violate the law.

Understanding that mental illness plays a part in a criminal’s behavior allows for much more respect between the justice system and its participants. This mindset would allow the justice system to factor in a major part of a criminal’s identity when making a decision which could mean life or death.

Speaking of life or death, insanity is not effective on the death penalty, or at least not in the way you would think. When you hear that someone did something bad, but they did not know what they were doing or how to control themselves, you can presume that it was not their fault. Right?

If that logic is so simple, then how can mental illness be seen as an aggravator instead of a mitigator. For reference, the death penalty is established based on these two factors. Aggravators make the crime more serious and mitigators limit that same quality, so when the aggravators weigh out the mitigators…that’s where the death penalty comes into play.

Although mental disability is often supposed to be a mitigator, as it demands that people understand the lack of clarity in the perpetrator’s mind and therefore, lack of responsibility, it is often not. Despite the legal definitions of mental disability defenses showing how those with such illnesses have insignificant control over their actions, insanity is disregarded in a cruel effort to place blame and take revenge.

Some legal defenses are known as the M’Naghten, Irresistible Impulse (I.I.), Mens Rea, and Automatism defenses. M’Naghten indicates that an individual cannot tell right from wrong. I.I. says that the perpetrator cannot regulate or restrict their impulses. Mens Rea is used to show that their is no guilty mind present in the perpetrator, and there was no clear intent to commit the crime. The Automatism defense is used to show that the perpetrator had no physical control over their body, and were not able to control their physical actions because of this.

All of these defenses that have been legally recognized share one common characteristic — mental illness had a significant enough impact on the perpetrator and for that reason, causes the disability itself to take a part of the blame for the crime.

How big that “part” is can be up to many factors. From my point of view, mental illness as a part of a crime should not be recognized as a criminalizing trait. Instead, it should push for aid for that person and help with their illness.

64% of people in jails are mentally ill. If that is not a sign that mental illness is not sufficiently recognized by the criminal justice system, then I truly don’t know what is.