Characteristics of Persons With Severe Mental Illness Who Have Been Incarcerated for Murder

In this descriptive study, we analyzed data collected from multiple state agencies on 95 persons with severe mental illness who were convicted of murder in Indiana between 1990 and 2002. Subjects were predominately suffering from a mood disorder, were white and male with a high school education or equivalent, were living in stabilized housing, and, to a lesser degree, were involved in significant intimate and familial relationships. Rage or anger, overwhelmingly directed toward intimate or familial relations by the use of a firearm or sharp object, was the most frequently mentioned motive for murder. Most of those studied had been raised in households with significant family dysfunction, had extensive histories of substance abuse and criminality, and had received little treatment for their mental and substance use disorders. Findings are contextualized and compared with similarly descriptive studies of nonlethal violence and persons with a mental illness; hospitalized, schizophrenic and psychotic murderers; and homicide offenders outside the United States

“Differential treatment” of persons with mental illness in parole release decisions?

Inmates with mental illness tend to fare worse in risk assessments and are less likely to be paroled than non-mentally ill inmates, extending their time behind bars. While prior research has attributed parole denial to differential treatment of mentally ill inmates in the parole release process, it is possible that other factors associated with mental illness increase the assessed risk of criminal behavior among inmates with mental illness, leading to higher rates of parole denial among this population. The study examined the relationships among mental illness, risk factors for criminal behavior, and parole release decisions in a representative sample of inmates with parole release decisions in the State of New Jersey during 2007. The possibility that these risk factors are applied differently to inmates with mental illness during the release decision-making process was also explored. Mental illness was not related to parole release but was related to several risk factors. However, these risk factors were not associated with release decisions. Mental illness had neither a direct nor an indirect effect on release decisions. Exploration of the moderating effects of mental illness on risk factors in the release decision making process revealed that risk factors examined were not considered differently by the parole board based upon an inmate\u27s mental health status. Prior research indicating differential treatment of inmates with mental illness in parole release decisions may have overstated this discrimination. The evidence on criminogenic needs that has been developed since prior examinations of release decisions were conducted has influenced parole board members\u27 release decisions and mitigated the influence of mental illness on release decisions. This study highlights the importance of considering these risk factors when analyzing parole release decisions. Further, it is incumbent upon services that aim to reduce the criminal behavior and incarceration rates among people with mental illness to target efforts at reducing criminal risk as well as the mental health of the people they serve

“Differential treatment” of persons with mental illness in parole release decisions?

Inmates with mental illness tend to fare worse in risk assessments and are less likely to be paroled than non-mentally ill inmates, extending their time behind bars. While prior research has attributed parole denial to differential treatment of mentally ill inmates in the parole release process, it is possible that other factors associated with mental illness increase the assessed risk of criminal behavior among inmates with mental illness, leading to higher rates of parole denial among this population. The study examined the relationships among mental illness, risk factors for criminal behavior, and parole release decisions in a representative sample of inmates with parole release decisions in the State of New Jersey during 2007. The possibility that these risk factors are applied differently to inmates with mental illness during the release decision-making process was also explored. Mental illness was not related to parole release but was related to several risk factors. However, these risk factors were not associated with release decisions. Mental illness had neither a direct nor an indirect effect on release decisions. Exploration of the moderating effects of mental illness on risk factors in the release decision making process revealed that risk factors examined were not considered differently by the parole board based upon an inmate\u27s mental health status. Prior research indicating differential treatment of inmates with mental illness in parole release decisions may have overstated this discrimination. The evidence on criminogenic needs that has been developed since prior examinations of release decisions were conducted has influenced parole board members\u27 release decisions and mitigated the influence of mental illness on release decisions. This study highlights the importance of considering these risk factors when analyzing parole release decisions. Further, it is incumbent upon services that aim to reduce the criminal behavior and incarceration rates among people with mental illness to target efforts at reducing criminal risk as well as the mental health of the people they serve

Matching consequences to behavior: Implications of failing to distinguish between noncompliance and nonresponsivity

Neither punitive nor therapeutic approaches alone are effective at addressing the dual public health and public safety concerns associated with managing criminal behavior perpetrated by people who have psychiatric and substance use disorders. The optimal solution may instead require the integration of both criminal justice supervision and treatment. Using problem-solving courts (PSCs) as a model, we focus on one dimension of this integrated approach, distinguishing between behavior that stems from willful noncompliance with supervision and behavior that results from nonresponsivity to treatment. First, we discuss the public health and public safety consequences of using singular approaches to address the criminal behavior of this population. We then present lessons learned from PSCs that distinguish between noncompliant and nonresponsive behaviors in making treatment and supervision decisions. Finally, we consider how the concepts of nonresponsivity and noncompliance may be extended, via policy, to probation and parole settings as well as mental health and substance abuse treatment services outside the criminal justice setting in order to enhance public health and safety. © 2011 Elsevier Ltd

Prize-based contingency management for the treatment of substance abusers: a meta-analysis

AIM: To review randomized controlled trials to assess efficacy of a prize-based contingency management procedure in reducing substance use (where a drug-free breath or urine sample provides a chance of winning a prize).; METHODS: A meta-analysis was conducted on papers published from January 2000 to February 2013 to determine the effect size of studies comparing prize-based contingency management to a treatment-as-usual control condition (k = 19 studies). Parallel analyses evaluated the efficacy of both short- (k = nine studies) and long-term outcomes (k = six studies) of prize-based contingency management.; RESULTS: The average end-of-treatment effect size (Cohen\u27s d) was 0.46 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.37, 0.54]. This effect size decreased at the short-term (≤3-month) post-intervention follow-up to 0.33 (95% CI = 0.12, 0.54) and at the 6-month follow-up time-point there was no detectable effect [d = -0.09 (95% CI = -0.28, 0.10)].; CONCLUSION: Adding prize-based contingency management to behavioral support for substance use disorders can increase short-term abstinence, but the effect does not appear to persist to 6 months