I. Problem Failure to provide successful treatment alternatives to the deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill and the unequal opportunity to receive proper mental health care treatment in the U.S has resulted in the overrepresentation of the mentally ill in U.S jails and prisons. Mental health courts have shown they reduce recidivism, long term treatment plans over incarceration, as sentenced by traditional criminal courts is a clear step in the right direction. (National Alliance on Mental Illness, 2008)The expansion and creation of more mental health courts in necessary. However, there is need for improvements in the innovation to better serve their clients ethically and effectively. II. Evidence A. The need for mental health …show more content…
Mental health courts have issues that need to be addressed, these issues include : • Informal selection criteria: A research study conducted by Nancy Wolff, Nichole Fabrikant and Steven Belenko (2011) suggest that clients selected by mental health courts are shaped by the formal and informal selection criteria” (Wolff, Fabrikant, Belenko, 2011,p. 402) • Voluntariness/Requirements: A research study conducted by Allison Redlich, Steven Hoover, Alicia Summers and Henry ( 2010) conducted a research study a found that a significant number of mental health court clients were not informed of the requirements for mental health courts or that they were voluntary (Redlich, Hoover, Summers & Steadman, 2010) • Guilty Plea: The majority of mental health courts require a guilty plea, therefore, the clients are convicted. Being convicted of a crime has collateral consequences. (McAleer, 2010) Collateral consequences may occur such as limitation of employment opportunities, access to public housing, disenfranchisement, elimination of welfare benefits and eligibility for financial aid. (The Sentencing Project, 2015) • Forced Medication: Although mental health courts are voluntary, and offenders are likely to benefit from medication, it is not ethical to force offenders to take medication against their will. (McAleer,
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
Like all form of disparities, mental health disparities is a serious challenge for minorities’ communities across America. Individuals with mental health illness how do not receive adequate health care due to variations can be affected in many ways. When their mental illness progress without any diagnosis they can easily be perceived as a threat to society. In cases where crimes are committed, and they cannot prove they are mentally challenged they can be charge and send to prison without being diagnosed which could affect their condition due to the lack of treatment. Without eradicating or implementing policies to deal with mental health disparities the probability of legally or morally assuming that people with mental health challenges are
This order is made at sentencing and follows risk assessment by an accredited body. It always includes a community-based portion and mechanisms for evaluating the patient according to set standards (Fyfe, 2011, p. 202). The Scottish government hopes that this order will not be used in more than fifteen cases per year, and thus far has been successful in this goal (Fyfe, 2011, p. 205). The Care Programme Approach can also be used with people who are part of the mental health system but were not introduced through court
A. O’Connor v. Donaldson 1975: In this precedent, the supreme court decided that the presence of mental illness alone is not enough to warrant involuntary confinement. If the patient is no longer found dangerous to him/herself or others, there is no justification to continue confinement. Commitment needs to be justified on the basis of mental disease and dangerousness. This precedent is applicable to the case of Mr. Y, because the statement above states dangerousness and mental illness as a basis for justifying continual commitment for Mr. Y. If the preponderance of evidence shows that Mr. Y is dangerous due to his mental disease, then deciding to civilly commit him would meet the requirement of this precedent case.
The book indirectly supports this idea by repeatedly stating people argue that those with mental illnesses are not getting the adequate amount of help while incarcerated, and sometimes prison life may complicate the problems mentally ill people already face (Ch. 9, pg. 231). If inmates can struggle with menial tasks like standing in line for lunch or medications, or struggle with disrupting behavior, it would make sense to send them to a facility where they can get proper mental health care rather than a disciplinary system that may cause more disruptions and
Without the insanity plea, those who are not in equal in mental stability are disproportionately punished by being convicted as any other criminal. The insanity defense is not an attempt to justify the person’s actions by any means. The plea deal is simply a way of ensuring a punishment commensurate to that of their mental boundary. If a defendant has no possible method of controlling his or her thoughts, then his or her punishment should not be equal to that of someone who is fully capable of forming a mens rea. Moreover, despite the prevalence of the insanity plea in our popular culture, it is not that prevalent in actual court cases.
There are actually many intricacies associated in a mental health court process. For instance, there are “probations, parole, the courts, jails, the community health system…” involve in the cases, which is difficult to manage, especially, for someone with a mental disorder (Docgurley, 2011). Simply penalizing accused mentally ill people will not help them become better, so through this court system, they can maintain their human rights and have the support they require to improve their condition. Mental health court, thus, is a sufficient system because it will not incarcerate and isolate indicted mentally ill
There are so many mentally ill people in correctional facilities because most families do not know how to help their loves ones who suffer from a mental illness, so the call the police for help. Majority of the police officers do not know what to do or how to handle people with a mental illness disease. Police officers who are not trained to deal with the mentally ill often do not recognize that person is ill. Some police officers do not recognize if the individual should or not go to jail or a treatment center or medical facility. The impact of law enforcement and the judicial system dealing with people with a mental illness is to assist the inmates with the help they need.
The Untied States has the highest rated of adult incarceration about 2.2 million in jail or in prison. About half of those inmates are mentally ill; the cause of this problem may me a result of deinstitutionalization of the state 's mental health system. In other words, the state has put the mentally ill humans in a correctional facility as they were in an asylum and the prisons holds more mentally ill humans than a state hospital nationwide. These offenders are mistreated inside of jails and prison, believes it or not it has been proven. Most of these individual have different illness, which consist of psychotic illness, depression, personality disorder, antisocial personality disorder, organic disorders and
If there are no charges available, those with a mental illness are usually charged with disorderly conduct. AODA charges are also quite frequent when it comes to the mentally ill. Families will also use incarceration as a way to get their mentally ill family member treatment. Priority for treatment is usually given to those with a mental illness who have been arrested because of a family member's request. (“Jails and Prisons,”
Yet, there is a significant proportion of death row inmates are mentally ill and the research evidence found suggests that mental illness is often, in fact, an aggravating factor as far as capital sentencing bodies are concerned. The Supreme Court eventually came to the conclusion of this: “If it is cruel and unusual punishment to hold convicted criminals in unsafe conditions, it must be unconstitutional to confine the involuntarily committed - who may not be punished at all - in unsafe conditions” (French, 2005) There are rights that each individual has, and there needs to be guidelines to make sure each person is treated fairly, even if they do not deserve such
Those who struggle with chronic mental illness sometimes, exhibit limited insight and judgment regarding their treatment (Menninger,2001). This potentially becomes detrimental because they can be a danger to themselves and/or others, and cannot care for themselves independently. In an involuntary commitment policy, the typical stakeholders consist of psychiatric patients, psychiatrist, medical doctors ,law enforcement, and legislators. During the policy formulation process, each of the stakeholders is able to provide different viewpoints given their field of
Introduction Prior to the mid-1960 virtually all mental health treatment was provided on an inpatient basis in hospitals and institutions. The Community Mental Health Act of 1963 was established with its primary focus on deinstitutionalizing mentally ill patients, and shutting down asylums in favor of community mental health centers. It was a major policy shift in mental health treatment that allowed patients to go home and live independently while receiving treatment, (Pollack & Feldman, 2003). As a result of the Act, there was a shift of mentally ill persons in custodial care in state institutions to an increase of the mentally ill receiving prosecutions in criminal courts.
New York in the 80s had streets full of citizens who were homeless and were being institutionalized for a mental disability, such as the case of Joyce Brown. The use of involuntary psychiatric commitment for an individual – although a justifiable act to a physician due to the principle of utility stating the need to help the most people for the best outcome – should not deny a patient’s right to autonomy, especially at the cost of non-maleficence. The United States has changed the ways in which a person is assessed and put into psychiatric treatment against their will by the judgement of the physician. There were patients who had chronic illnesses and were subdued by restraints and sedation up to 1950s.