Diversion of Offenders with Mental Disorders: Mental Health Courts (original) (raw)
Related papers
Courts as therapeutic agents: thinking past the novelty of mental health courts
The journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 2002
Persons who have mental illness are over-represented among jail and prison inmates. 1 Efforts have been advancing to stem the flow of offenders who have mental illness into the criminal justice system. The best known initiatives are diversion programs situated within the police department or jail. 2-4 The mental health court is the newest of these approaches. 5-7 Although there are currently fewer than a score of mental health courts in the country, the numbers are expected to mushroom with passage of Public Law Number 107-77, 8 which earmarked $4 million for mental health courts in 2002. Mental health courts are analogous to drug courts. Their intent is to reduce criminal behavior and recidivism by treating the illness that is causing illegal behavior. 9 In following the legal theory of therapeutic jurisprudence, these courts are attempting to improve justice by considering the therapeutic and antitherapeutic consequences that "flow from substantive rules, legal procedures, or the behavior of legal actors (lawyers and judges)." 10 Mental health courts, by embracing the principles of therapeutic jurisprudence, become dual agents, representing both treatment and justice concerns. Because of their nascence, there is scant empirical evidence on the performance of mental health courts. Available evidence suggests that recruitment is feasible and engagement in treatment is possible. 11 In advance of the evidence, however, it is important to examine the mental health court model in the context of its likely therapeutic and antitherapeutic consequences and to consider whether there are other ways to engage the court as a therapeutic agent that will yield a better portfolio of consequences.
Mental Illness and Criminal Justice Processing: The Strategies and Dilemmas of Defence Lawyers
International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 2001
While this question of the existence or the extent of such a criminalization process is still unsettled, we have witnessed since the beginning of the nineties the development of a variety of diversion programmes around North America and in other English-speaking countries. These programmes were speci¢cally developed as an answer to the (perceived or actual) criminalization of mental illness. We believe that the very existence of such programmes reveals the multiplicity of interactions between the criminal justice system and the mental health institutions. From a criminal justice standpoint, whether or not a diversion strategy is chosen, everyday activities will entail contact with, and decisions regarding, individuals who are facing mental health problems. A few remarks can be drawn quickly from this simple observation. First, the introduction of diversion policies and programmes does not exclude all forms of criminal justice actions (
Too Good To Be True: Second Thoughts on the Proliferation of Mental Health Courts
Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 2010
Historical Discrimination and Criminalization the last two decades have witnessed the proliferation of mental health courts, proffered by governments as an efficacious and sometimes exclusive response to the complex social dynamics causing the criminalization of persons who live with mental health problems. the ready embrace of this variant of the problem-solving-courts genre has diverted policy-makers and citizens from confronting the root causes of the challenging intersection of mental illness and crime. the new courts have acquired a legitimacy that belies a wide range of doubts about their existence and operation. this commentary will offer a counterpoint to the accelerating momentum of mental health courts. it is intended to discourage their creation and to sharpen the monitoring of functioning courts. the phenomena that spawned this novel curial option have ancient roots. historically, people with serious mental illness have been the victims of widespread discrimination and have been relegated to the margins of society. this isolation has been accompanied by poverty, derision, coercion, institutionalization, abuse and neglect-weaving a web of social conditions that exacerbated any pre-existing vulnerability. the likelihood of incidents involving stress, decompensation, disruptive behaviour, conflict, and criminality is multiplied in such circumstances. this marginalization continues today: persons with mental illness are "being jailed rather than helped due to the lack of community mental health services," where "the trigger for police involvement is usually a nuisance offence" (everett et al., 2003, p. 16). contact with the justice system frequently produces negative outcomes, unsurprising from a system that "was neither designed nor intended to address society's responsibility to the mentally disordered individual" (schneider, Bloom, & heerema, 2007, p. 2). that mental health care is "one of the orphan children" or a "poor second cousin" 1 has resulted in more law enforcement attention (e.g., alberta's provincial diversion framework, 2001, p. 4) and larger proportions of inmates of penal institutions at both the provincial and federal levels 2 having mental health problems. even proponents of mental health courts concur that "the problems we are facing within the criminal justice system would not be nearly so pressing had the civil mental health system been operating in a more potent manner" (schneider, 2010, p. 205). this insidious situation is not unchangeable, but governments have turned too readily to mental health courts as "a pragmatic solution to the problem of untreated mental illness in the community" for accused persons who "do not really belong in the criminal justice system" (stefan & Winick, 2005, p. 510).
Problem-Solving Courts and the Criminal Justice System, 2019
This chapter focuses on mental health courts, a problem-solving court that developed in the wake of drug courts to address the needs of offenders with mental health diagnoses or co-occurring mental health and substance abuse concerns. In this chapter, the authors first review the overrepresentation of individuals with mental illness in the criminal justice system. They then describe the history and current state of mental health courts in the United States. The chapter then provides a detailed summary of the research on mental health courts. Although there is considerably less research on mental health courts than on drug courts, the available research provides reason to be cautiously optimistic. Within this discussion, the authors also note the limitations in mental health court research. Finally, the authors conclude the chapter with a discussion of innovative mental health court practices and the future of mental health courts.
Mental Health Diversion Courts: Some Directions for Further Development
Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 2013
Recent years have seen a growth in the number of specialist courts operating in Australia, including those which aim to address the needs of mentally disordered offenders. This article describes some of the key characteristics of mental health courts, using case studies from the most established court in Australia, the South Australian Magistrates Court Diversion Program (MCDP). This is followed by a consideration of some factors that may affect the future development of this type of program. It is concluded that there is a need to pay careful attention to issues of risk assessment and risk management if the dual goals of improving both the health of individual and the safety of the community are to be realised.
Recent Developments In Mental Health Courts: What Have We Learned?
Journal of Forensic Social Work, 2013
Mental health courts (MHCs) are problem-solving courts that attempt to redirect individuals with mental illness into treatment rather than incarceration (Wolff, 2003). The primary purpose of this article is to provide a narrative review of recent evidence on the empirical status of MHCs and suggest directions for future social work research. Such a review is critical given the existence of 300 MHCs in the United States (Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2011) with more in development. Four major questions guided our review: (a) How do they work? (b) Does a theoretical basis exist to explain how they work? (c) What is the nature of the evidence? and (d) What are the characteristics of the mentally ill who choose not to participate in MHC programs and of those who are negatively terminated? Though studies have shown reductions in assessed outcomes, a lack of methodologically strong evaluations significantly limits the strength of those results. There exists a need for additional, methodologically rigorous studies to better understand the effectiveness of MHCs.
Variations in Mental Health Courts: Challenges, Opportunities, and a Call for Caution
Community Mental Health Journal, 2006
Mental health courts have quickly proliferated in the United States and represent an attempt to expand legal leverage and enhanced treatment access to select persons with severe mental illness who are also involved in the criminal justice system. A national survey of mental health courts has begun to elucidate the procedural, clinical, and operational aspects of these courts and the defendants they adjudicate. A secondary analysis of survey data was performed to determine the similarities and differences among these courts. Results revealed large variability among existing mental health courts across multiple domains. The implications of this variability are discussed in terms benefits and limitations.
A dialogue on mental health courts
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2005
In this Foreword, the co-guest editors of this symposium on mental health courts introduce the topic by defining the concept, describing the reasons for its inception, and noting the controversies it has provoked. It then summarizes the articles in the symposium. Finally, the editors, who disagree about the value, effectiveness, and consequences of this new model, air their differences in a dialogue designed to delineate the issues and educate the reader.
International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 2010
The form that diversion mechanisms take in a given jurisdiction will be influenced both by mental health law and sentencing policies, and by the structure of criminal justice and health care systems. In England and Wales, treatment in hospital in lieu of any other sentence is available as a disposal option following a finding of guilt. In addition, there is a National Health Service, free at the point of delivery, the existence of which creates the potential for a coordinated nationwide response to mental disorder within the criminal justice system. In recent years, the National Health Service has taken over the delivery of health care in prisons, including psychiatric services, with the principle being one of equivalence between the quality of health provision provided in the community and that provided in prisons. However, problems within the system dictate that an important place remains for add-on diversion initiatives at courts and police stations, which aim to circumvent some of the delays in dealing with mentally disordered people or to prevent them entering the criminal justice system in the first place. It has been demonstrated that such mechanisms can be highly effective, and a government-sponsored review in 1992 recommended their general adoption. A lack of central coordination determined that progress was very slow. A new government-commissioned report in 2009 set out detailed recommendations for reform throughout the system. It laid emphasis on a coordinated response at all levels and between all agencies, and placed importance on linking initiatives with community services and with preventative measures, including attention to the effects of social exclusion. Some grounds for optimism exist, although there are particular problems in implementing change at a time of financial austerity.
Mental health courts: serving justice and promoting recovery
Annals of health law / Loyola University Chicago, School of Law, Institute for Health Law, 2010
This article begins and ends with a call for more empirical research to understand the connection between societal views of mental illness and the legal system. The author asserts that changing social perceptions of mental illness certainly affect legal outcomes and commitment levels, but the degree remains unknown. This article explores the above two topics through the framework of the Circuit Court 'split' regarding the Constitutional rights of persons committed to state mental health institutions. A main facet of the 'split' is centered on the Circuits' disagreement about whether or not all mentally ill patients committed to institutions deserve the same Constitutional protections.