Criminal Justice Diversion for Persons with Mental Disorders A Review of Best Practices (original) (raw)
Related papers
Diversion of Offenders with Mental Disorders: Mental Health Courts
Web Journal of Current Legal Issues, 2012
At present, if people with mental disorders appear before the criminal courts in Ireland, unless they are unfit for trial or not guilty by reason of insanity, the system governing their case will be the general one which applies to all criminal cases. In recent decades, a number of other common law jurisdictions have begun to set up mental health courts as a means of diverting some people with mental disorders from the criminal justice system and into more appropriate treatment. This article begins with a review of the background to mental health courts, focusing on the concept of diversion from the criminal justice system and the role of Therapeutic Jurisprudence theory as an inspiration for the establishment of mental health courts. The main features of mental health courts are identified and the features of those in existence in the United States are contrasted with those in Canada and England and Wales. Some of the main arguments against the use of these courts will be discussed, including the contentions that defendants' participation may not be truly voluntary and that their due process rights are not adequately protected. The question of whether a mental health court should be established in Ireland is considered.
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.
Diversion of Mentally Disordered Offenders: A Legitimate Role for Clinicians?
Consultations to the courts often extend beyond criminal competencies and may include implicit statements regarding the diversion of mentally disordered offenders to treatment facilities. Arguments for diversion are based on humanitarian interests and treatment needs. Arguments opposing diversion recommendations emphasize (a) the variability of opinions regarding treatability, (b) the lack of sufficient outcome data, and (c) the potential for negative consequences in offering unsolicited opinions on diversion. Initial data from 271 pretrial evaluations underscore the range in psychiatric use of diversion recommendations, although inpatient referrals in particular appear to be based on clinical status.
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.
Court diversion for those with psychosis and its impact on reoffending rates
2019
A recently published population-based, longitudinal study of people with a psychotic disorder who came before the NSW Local Court between 2001 and 2012 found that the reoffending rate was 12% lower for those who had received a diversion order under ss 32 or 33 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW) (MHFP Act) rather than a punitive sanction and that increased community mental health contact was associated with reduced offending. These findings suggest that diversion of those with serious mental illness into treatment under the MHFP Act may have positive benefits for the community in terms of reducing reoffending.
Mental Health and Criminal Charges: Variation in Diversion Pathways in Australia
Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 2017
Mental health and criminal justice legislation must provide the appropriate mechanisms for ensuring the assessment and care of mentally ill individuals. It must also balance the right to justice of these individuals with the rights of the community. In Australia, each jurisdiction has its own legislative provisions related to mental health, criminal legislation and sentencing, with variation in the mental health diversion options that are available. This article uses a national survey of court liaison services and mental health courts in Australia and a review of the relevant legislative frameworks to compare jurisdictional approaches to mental health diversion. Despite calls from the National Mental Health Commission for consistency, the Australian approach to the provision of mental health services to people in the criminal justice system is heterogeneous and piecemeal. Variation in the diversion pathways available to individuals with mental illness exists across Australia. The presence of problem-solving courts in some, but not all, jurisdictions results in differences in access to legal and treatment options.
Mental health and criminal justice: bridging two worlds
The Journal of Forensic Practice, 2022
Purpose The purpose of this study was to describe programs that aim at programs to divert people with a mental condition from the criminal justice system to mental health services are being initiated, but reporting is limited and fragmented. This study described programs that aim at diverting persons with mental health conditions out of criminal justice systems to community mental health services, with the intention to inform research and practice. Design/methodology/approach A scoping review was used to map and synthesise diversion programs. Ten online data bases were searched. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews was used to direct the selection of sources. Research and evaluation publications and grey literature published from 2010 to 2021 in English language were included. Findings Eight distinct diversion programs were identified across 24 countries or territories covering five phases of the criminal justice process. D...
Journal of Criminal Justice, 2013
Purpose: Adults with severe mental illness are overrepresented in the criminal justice system, and traditional criminal justice processing has not led to meaningful improvement in recidivism and other relevant outcomes. Fortunately, there has been considerable growth in community-based alternatives to standard prosecution for justice-involved adults with severe mental illness. The purpose of this article is to examine three such community-based alternativesdiversion, problem-solving courts, and reentry into the communityand offer best practice recommendations for developing, implementing, and refining these programs. Methods: The literature relating to the impetus and rationale for community-based alternatives, an organizing framework for conceptualizing the range of community-based alternatives, and the empirical evidence for community-based alternatives was reviewed. Results: Existing research on diversion, problem-solving courts, and reentry is generally inconsistent and lacking in uniformity. Although some community-based interventions have a great deal of empirical support, other interventions have received very little research attention. Conclusions: Research suggests that some community-based alternatives are an effective strategy for adults with severe mental illness, but more empirical research is needed before most community-based interventions can be described as empirically supported.
Court diversion for juveniles with mental health disorders
The virtual mentor : VM, 2013
The high rates of diagnosable mental health disorders among youth involved in the juvenile justice system has prompted calls to action from congressional representatives [1], administrators within federal justice agencies [2], federal commissions [3], and the Council of State Governments [4]. In addition, the federal Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act [5] provides grant funding for collaborations between mental health and justice systems, and recent legislation in Washington State directly addresses the diversion of juvenile offenders with mental health disorders through expanding diversion options and strengthening connections with mental health treatment [6].