Mental Health Courts: Serving Justice and Promoting Recovery

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 \u27split\u27 regarding the Constitutional rights of persons committed to state mental health institutions. A main facet of the \u27split\u27 is centered on the Circuits\u27 disagreement about whether or not all mentally ill patients committed to institutions deserve the same Constitutional protections

Examining Mental Health Court Completion: A Focal Concerns Perspective

Sociologists have long-raised concern about disparate treatment in the justice system. Focal concerns have become the dominant perspective in explaining these disparities in legal processing decisions. Despite the growth of problem-solving courts, little research has examined how this perspective operates in nontraditional court settings. This article used a mixed-method approach to examine focal concerns in a mental health court (MHC). Observational findings indicate that gender and length of time in court influence the court's contextualization of noncompliance. While discussions of race were absent in observational data, competing-risk survival analysis finds that gender and race interact to predict MHC termination

Examining Mental Health Court Completion: A Focal Concerns Perspective

Sociologists have long-raised concern about disparate treatment in the justice system. Focal concerns have become the dominant perspective in explaining these disparities in legal processing decisions. Despite the growth of problem-solving courts, little research has examined how this perspective operates in nontraditional court settings. This article used a mixed-method approach to examine focal concerns in a mental health court (MHC). Observational findings indicate that gender and length of time in court influence the court's contextualization of noncompliance. While discussions of race were absent in observational data, competing-risk survival analysis finds that gender and race interact to predict MHC termination

Who\u27s Pretending to Care for Him? How the Endless Jail-to-Hospital-to-Street-Repeat Cycle Deprives Persons with Mental Disabilities the Right to Continuity of Care

There is a well-documented “shuttle process” by which individuals committed to psychiatric institutions (having been charged with minor “nuisance”-type criminal offenses) are often stabilized, returned to jail to await trial, and then returned to the hospital following relapse. This shuttling or cycling is bad for many reasons, not least of which is the way that it deprives the cohort of individuals at risk from any meaningful continuity of care. Continuity of care is crucial in order to reduce the rate of incarceration and institutionalization for persons with mental illness. Without this continuity, it is far less likely that any therapeutic intervention will have any long-lasting ameliorative effect. In this paper, we will argue that the current system – in addition to being utterly counter-productive (and in many ways, destructive) – also violates the constitutional right to treatment, and the statutory right to non-discrimination as provided in domestic (the Americans with Disabilities Act) and international (the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) human rights law. This also violates every precept of therapeutic jurisprudence; in this context, we argue that it is necessary for lawyers to integrate these teachings – focusing on the prerequisites of “voice, validation and voluntariness” – in their representation of this population in the hopes that the current system can be ameliorated. In conclusion, we will offer some solutions as to how continuity of care can be improved through mental health courts, programs that support diversion away from incarceration at an early process in a criminal proceeding, proper mental health screening, expanded access health treatment and better re-entry services, and training for all persons interacting with someone with mental illness

Theorizing Mental Health Courts

To date, no scholarly article has analyzed the theoretical basis of mental health courts, which currently exist in forty-three states. This Article examines the two utilitarian justifications proposed by mental health court advocates—therapeutic jurisprudence and therapeutic rehabilitation—and finds both insufficient. Therapeutic jurisprudence is inadequate to justify mental health courts because of its inability, by definition, to resolve significant normative conflict. In essence, mental health courts express values fundamentally at odds with those underlying the traditional criminal justice system. Furthermore, the sufficiency of rehabilitation, as this concept appears to be defined by mental health court advocates, depends on the validity of an assumed link between mental illness and crime. In particular, mental health courts view participants’ criminal behavior as symptomatic of their mental illnesses and insist that untreated mental illness serves as a major driver of recidivism. Drawing upon social science research and an independent analysis of mental health courts’ eligibility criteria, this Article demonstrates that these relationships may not hold for a substantial proportion of individuals served by mental health courts. The Article concludes by identifying alternative theories that may justify this novel diversion intervention

Theorizing Mental Health Courts

To date, no scholarly article has analyzed the theoretical basis of mental health courts, which currently exist in forty-three states. This Article examines the two utilitarian justifications proposed by mental health court advocates—therapeutic jurisprudence and therapeutic rehabilitation—and finds both insufficient. Therapeutic jurisprudence is inadequate to justify mental health courts because of its inability, by definition, to resolve significant normative conflict. In essence, mental health courts express values fundamentally at odds with those underlying the traditional criminal justice system. Furthermore, the sufficiency of rehabilitation, as this concept appears to be defined by mental health court advocates, depends on the validity of an assumed link between mental illness and crime. In particular, mental health courts view participants’ criminal behavior as symptomatic of their mental illnesses and insist that untreated mental illness serves as a major driver of recidivism. Drawing upon social science research and an independent analysis of mental health courts’ eligibility criteria, this Article demonstrates that these relationships may not hold for a substantial proportion of individuals served by mental health courts. The Article concludes by identifying alternative theories that may justify this novel diversion intervention

Theorizing Mental Health Courts

To date, no scholarly article has analyzed the theoretical basis of mental health courts, which currently exist in forty-three states. This Article examines the two utilitarian justifications proposed by mental health court advocates—therapeutic jurisprudence and therapeutic rehabilitation—and finds both insufficient. Therapeutic jurisprudence is inadequate to justify mental health courts because of its inability, by definition, to resolve significant normative conflict. In essence, mental health courts express values fundamentally at odds with those underlying the traditional criminal justice system. Furthermore, the sufficiency of rehabilitation, as this concept appears to be defined by mental health court advocates, depends on the validity of an assumed link between mental illness and crime. In particular, mental health courts view participants\u27 criminal behavior as symptomatic of their mental illnesses and insist that untreated mental illness serves as a major driver of recidivism. Drawing upon social science research and an independent analysis of mental health courts\u27 eligibility criteria, this Article demonstrates that these relationships may not hold for a substantial proportion of individuals served by mental health courts. The Article concludes by identifying alternative theories that may justify this novel diversion intervention

Transforming the System

Our criminal justice system must keep all communities safe, foster prevention and rehabilitation, and ensure fair and equal justice. But in too many places, and in too many ways, our system is falling short of that mandate and with devastating consequences. The United States is saddled with an outdated, unfair, and bloated criminal justice system that drains resources and disrupts communities. The U.S. prison population has swelled to unprecedented levels and unequal, unjustified treatment based on race and ethnicity is well documented. People of color, particularly Native American, African American, and Latino people, have felt the impact of discrimination within the criminal justice system. As of 2012, there were 2.2 million people incarcerated in the United States, costing our nation $80 billion—funds that could go to worthier options, such as education and community enrichment. In addition, many immigrants experience mandatory detention, racial profiling, and due process violations because of laws and policies that violate their human rights—and the principles of equal justice, fair treatment, and proportionality under our criminal justice system. The good news is that we as a nation are at a unique moment in which there is strong public, bipartisan support for criminal justice reform, positive policy developments in many parts of the country, and mass action and social movements for change, including the Movement for Black Lives and Black Lives Matter. More is needed, however, to move from positive trends to transformative, lasting change. There is a lack of positive solutions and alternatives in public discourse, and inadequate coordination among pro-reform advocates and commentators. Several interviewees for The Opportunity Agenda’s Criminal Justice Report, including leading criminal justice and civil rights activists, scholars, and government officials, noted that they often work in silos on their discrete issues with limited collaboration among sectors. They identified a need for a more coordinated and sophisticated effort that would consolidate the gains that have been made and support sustained reform efforts going forward. This is doubly true at the intersection of criminal justice and immigration. While grassroots movements are increasingly working across these sectors, the issues are often disconnected in public discourse. To address these deficits, this document identifies and explains pragmatic policy solutions for comprehensive criminal justice6 reform, consolidating recommendations on a cross-section of issues, and is a tool for communicating about these solutions. It highlights practical solutions that are effective, fair, and efficient. The issues are examined in an inclusive and intersectional manner, considering the unique ways that race, gender, gender identity, sexual expression, and health status affect criminal justice administration. Nonetheless, this is a living document that will be updated periodically as good ideas continue to be developed by criminal justice practitioners, advocates, and scholars. The solutions are intended, in part, to aid the promotion of criminal justice reforms and should be used in tandem with our communications tools to advance a shared narrative about transforming the criminal justice system.https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facbooks/1276/thumbnail.jp