Spiritual Being
hehehehehe
conflicting answers from a range of sources
does anyone know if he was actually mentally ill?
does anyone know if he was actually mentally ill?
-
Looking for HSC notes and resources? Check out our Notes & Resources page
Was Ivan Milat mentally ill? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Spiritual Being
- Start date
It's possible, some say yes but other say no. Irrespective, it's important to remember that if your raising this issue for insanity defences, you remember that the standard for insanity is a legal definition not a medical one (as per R v Trotter 1993). I think from a legal standpoint, Ivan Milat was considered sane.
Last edited:
Spiritual Being
hehehehehe
yeah ok thats good then, gives me freedom with what I'm writing
yeah I'll change that in my essay. Thanks enoilgam
here is the question and what I've done so far
the question is: Describe a range of factors that could lead people to criminal behaviour – Refer to Ivan Milat
Criminology, known as the scientific study of crime and criminal behaviour investigates the several factors which act as motivating forces that influence a potential offender to commit a criminal offence. These factors include Psychological factors, Social factors, Economic factors, Political factors and Self-interest. However, it must be noted that in recent times, Genetic theories have been proposed, theorising that those with a certain genetic make-up are more likely to commit crimes than those without such genetic make-ups. However, genetic theories have not been proven, lack validity and prompting great controversy. This lack of conclusiveness means Genetic theories should not be construed as a motivating factor for someone to commit a crime.
Psychological factors refer to the many forms of mental illness affecting a person’s behaviour, leading them to commit crimes because the mental illness prevents them from knowing the commission of their crime is lawfully wrong. These Psychological factors are sustainably integrated in the criminal legal process and are not ignored. The accused’s mental state at the time of the commission of the crime is able to be brought up by the Defence or the Prosecution in legal proceedings. For example, the Defence will argue that the defendant’s mental illness in a particular case prevented the wrongful knowledge of the crime at hand, demonstrating a lack of Mens Rea i.e. a lack of intent. From this the Judge can decide that the defendant will be tried under ‘mental illness’ where if found guilty of the criminal offence, will be sentenced to a mental institution (or otherwise e.g. drug rehabiliation center; depending on severity of the crime) as oppose to imprisonment. This ensures that the psychological rehabilitation of the accused is prioritised in the legal system because if one who suffered from a mental illness that directly intertwines into the crime was sentenced to prison, they would not receive the necessary care for their psychological well-being. The Prosecution on the other hand can counter this in two ways and present their own case. Firstly, they can oppose the idea that a mental disease ever exists by raising questions about the diagnosis or the true presence of it in the accused. Secondly, the mental illness may abide in the accused, but it does not prevent the accused from knowing the wrongdoing in the crime, thus Mens Rea (intent) is then established. All of the aforementioned information regarding mental illness including both legal and clinical definitions of mental illness are highlighted in the Mental Health Act 1990 (NSW).
Now i'm going to start talking about ivan milat
and factors which he doesn't necessarily include him, I'll say why it doesn't and introduce a case which fits that factor
I would probably just describe how mental illness leads to criminal behaviour, as opposed to how it's handled by the legal system (so dont really discuss stuff from my previous post).