Mental Illness and Crime

Yet another senseless murder, this time in Charlotte, has exposed the consequences of untreated mental illness. On August 22, around 9:50 PM, a perpetrator with a documented history of schizophrenia brutally murdered a young Ukrainian woman aboard a light rail train. He had previously exhibited erratic and delusional behavior, but authorities failed to intervene in time. Let’s take a look.

Mental Illness Impact in Charlotte Murder

What is particularly disturbing in this case is that there was no provocation or spoken words between the two people. The Ukrainian woman, a refugee from the war, was sitting quietly on the train in front of the perpetrator. The man took out a pocket knife and brutally stabbed the woman three times in the neck, killing her. The man walks down the aisle towards the bus door. This case has brought untreated mental illness into the public discourse again.

Another disturbing element of this crime is that the authorities arrested the perpetrator 14 times previously, including for violent crimes. His criminal history includes:

• Felony larceny
• Robbery with a dangerous weapon
• Communicating threats
• Assault
• Shoplifting

Authorities sentenced him to six years in prison in 2015 for crimes he committed in 2013 and 2014, and they released him in 2020. Just months later, police arrested him again for assaulting his sister, and his mother requested an involuntary psychiatric commitment as his behavior grew increasingly aggressive.

The fact that mental illness was a major contributor to this crime overshadows the fact that he should not have been on the streets to commit the crime in the first place. The revolving door of justice put this criminal back on the streets, untreated for his mental disorder. He then murdered the young woman on the train.

Mental Illness and Its Impact on Crime

Surprisingly, no agency has published an official nationwide statistic that precisely quantifies how many U.S. murders stem directly from mental illness. The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program tracks homicide data, but it does not categorize murders by the perpetrator’s mental health status. This means that the breadth of mental health crime is mainly anecdotal. We do not know whether the impact is significantly better or worse than we hear.

Mental health evaluations should be automatically triggered in the following cases after arrest, but this is inconsistent across the states:

• Visible symptoms or erratic behavior during arrest or detention
• Court orders for competency evaluations (e.g., to determine fitness to stand trial)
• Defense requests related to insanity pleas or sentencing mitigation
• Repeat offenses or known psychiatric history, especially if flagged in prior arrests

The perpetrator in the Charlotte murder was arrested on January 19, 2025, for misusing the 911 system. Charlotte does not automatically trigger mental health evaluations for individuals who meet clinical or behavioral criteria. Evaluations typically occur only when a judge orders them, and even then, delays are common due to backlogs in the system. Some of the factors why health assessments may vary by city/state:

• Each state sets criteria for when and how courts or law enforcement can mandate psychiatric evaluations. Some states require clear evidence of mental instability before ordering an assessment, while others allow broader discretion.
• Court-Ordered vs. Discretionary Evaluations – Courts may order evaluations to determine competency to stand trial, criminal responsibility, or risk of harm. Unless a defendant shows obvious signs of mental illness—or a lawyer requests it—many jurisdictions do not automatically screen arrestees for psychiatric conditions.
• Lack of consistent protocols—There is no federal mandate requiring universal mental health screening at arrest. The federal government must define the criteria needed to have the states act consistently in how to handle those with mental health issues who commit crimes.

What is the Catholic View on the Issue?

Jesus didn’t just heal people; He reached out, restored, and redeemed those outside society. He actively healed those He came in contact with, and there were never any conditions for healing. Jesus’ actions in healing teach us:

• Love sometimes requires intervention, especially when someone cannot recognize their need.
• Restoration includes dignity, not just relief from symptoms.
• Healing is holistic—spiritual, emotional, relational.

Civil commitment, or involuntary care, can reflect Jesus’ heart, but only if rooted in compassion. This isn’t about controlling the individual; it’s about helping the individual get the help they need to re-enter society as productive people safely.

State and Federal governments need to do a much better job in collaborating to help those who have mental illness get the help they need. We can’t afford to continue the revolving door of justice and put violent and/or mentally ill people back on the streets. This safety issue must be addressed holistically and wholly across the U.S.

Please share your thoughts on this article in the “Comments” section.

Peace