With the closing of most state-run mental health facilities in the 1960’s and reduction in services available to those needing treatment, the burden of dealing with the mentally ill population has been diverted to local criminal justice systems over the last forty years. As a result, increasing numbers of mentally ill offenders, often with substance abuse problems, are being arrested for drug, disorder and quality-of-life crimes. This places an enormous financial burden on already cash-strapped law enforcement agencies and contributes to the jail and prison overcrowding problem. While many argue that this amounts to the “criminalization of mental illness,” criminal justice agencies are left with no choice but to take on a new population of inmates whose needs they are neither trained nor have the resources to meet (White, Goldkamp & Campbell, 2006, p.302). In a comparison of individuals arrested and those detained on mental holds, White et al (2006) found that the latter group is at greater risk for reoffending and repeated contacts with police. Clearly, those with mental health issues spend more time locked up and result in greater incarceration costs. Furthermore, because their conditions go untreated, this becomes a repetitive cycle. The social and fiscal consequences of deinstitutionalization make it obvious that a different approach is needed.
Reference:
White, M. D., Goldkamp, J. S. & Campbell, S. P. (2006). Co-occurring mental
illness and substance abuse in the criminal justice system: some
implications for local jurisdictions. The Prison Journal, 86(3), 301-326. doi:10.1177/0032885506290852
According to the 2000 article, Helping The Mentally Ill In Jails Adjust To Community Life: A Description Of A Post Release ACT Program And Its Clients, by the authors, Arthur J. Lurigio
John R. Fallon, and Jerry Dincin, it was common practice in the 1600’s for mentally ill persons to be incarcerated. This was because the community believed the persons to be “dangerous to the peace or safety of the good people” in the community (Lurigo et. al., 2000, pg 534). The policy to incarcerate the mentally ill continued through the 1830’s when the public finally “expressed outrage” at the use of these facilities to just house the mentally ill persons. However we have now come full circle and once again we are criminalizing the mentally ill persons instead of properly taking care of them (Lurigo et. al., 2000, pg 534).
Although this is not a new issue, current policies and procedures have created a challenge for our police, court and corrections in dealing with the ever increasing interactions with mentally ill and drug addicted criminals (White et. al., 2006, pg. 301). Michael D. White, John S. Goldkamp and Suzanne P. Campbell’s 2006 article Co-Occurring Mental Illness And Substance Abuse In The Criminal Justice System: Some Implications For Local Jurisdictions, reports that the 1999 Bureau of Justice Statistics data shows, “16% of all state prison and local jail inmates and 7% of federal prisoners” are mentally ill (pg 302). In addition, it is acknowledged that many of these persons have the compounding factor of drug abuse issues (pg. 302).
Once again our system is criminalizing persons with mental illnesses (White et. al., 2006, pg. 302). We are dealing with mentally ill persons basically by default as our other social service agencies that should be assisting these persons have become the “institution of last resort” (White et. al., 2006, pg 304). With the lack of mental health and drug abuse services in the criminal justice system, these persons are most likely not going to receive the care and help that they need (White et. al., 2006, pg 305; Lurigio, A. J. et al, 2000, pg. 534). Therefore, we are not fixing the problem we are adding to it.
Our system has become the revolving door for criminals with mental illnesses/drug abuse issues (White et. al., 2006, pg 306; Lurigio, A. J. et al, 2000, pg. 534). No only are they repeat offenders, they receive sentences for longer periods of time and because of mandated sentencing in association with their mental health, they usually serve them out (Hartwell, 2003, pg. 146)
In essence we are only spending a significant amount of time and money housing mentally ill and drug addicted persons instead of attempting to truly help them. This is a problem for every community as when a person is convicted of a crime they are also eventually released back into our community (Hartwell, 2003, pg 145). There are several communities that are attempting to fix this problem.
The analysis entitled, A Comparison of Prebooking and Postbooking Diversion Programs for Mentally Ill Substance-Using Individuals With Justice Involvement, conducted by Lattimore et. al. (2003) evaluated several different programs what were trying to find a solution.
Lattimore et al, (2003, pgs. 38-39) describe a Lane County, Oregon program (Co-Occurring Diversion Program) as a post booking program where trained officers screen all persons being booked into the Lane County Jail for mental and/or substance abuse disorders. Those who are identified by the corrections officers are then evaluated by jail mental health professionals. The persons who are confirmed to have problems are then offered entry into the program. No only to they have to volunteer for the program, the prosecuting attorney has to agree for them to enter it. The person then pleads out their case, attends treatment as recommended by officials. Once they have successfully completed their treatment program the judge can dismiss the charges against them. There are many community-based agencies and the community mental health clinics that provide integrated treatment for the diversion clients.
Even though the Lane County Program is more of a “drug court”, this issue/disorder is directly related to the mental health issues (White et. al., 2006, pg. 302). Lane County’s Drug court was not the first program of this kind.
In 1989, the first drug court was opened in Dade Count Florida. According to the National Drug Control Policy, the problem solving drug court was developed to address “rapidly increasing recidivism rates” of drug defendants. (http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/enforce/drugcourt.html) In brief, the drug court program takes non violent offenders who are users/addicts and offers the offenders an alternative to incarceration. The court acknowledges that the underlying contributor for most of these offenders is their addiction to drugs.
The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) website explains that drug courts help break the vicious cycle of drug abuse and recidivism. This shows recognition that the addict needs to receive substance abuse treatment and if the drug use/abuse issue is taken care of we then increase the possibility of stopping the revolving door of the criminal justice system.
The 2005 annual report from the ONDCP, the research (evidence) shows that, “Drug courts outperform virtually all other strategies that have been attempted for drug involved offenders” and “drug use and criminal behavior are substantially reduced while offenders are participating in drug court” (http://www.ndci.org/publications/10697_PaintPict_fnl4.pdf).
Lisa Nored’s review of several studies conducted in the early years of 2000 showed that the researcher’s concluded that drug courts are successful. That offender re-arrest rates are significantly decreased when compared to their others who did not participate in drug courts. This was especially true for violent offenses. (Nored, 2008 pg 330)
Arizona, Hawaii and New York also have programs similar to Lane County’s program which is more specifically designed for the treatment of mental health issues (Lattimore et al, 2003, pgs. 39-40). The post booking programs here again, offer a way to ensure that the persons who have mental health issues are diverted to the appropriate care facility and program instead of just being housed in the criminal justice system. The Comparison between the post booking and pre booking programs that are available in various areas show that these types of programs are helping (Lattimore et al, 2003, pgs 58-59).
It is clear that there are programs and other solutions to assist those persons with mental illness and drug abuse issues. If we continue to facilitate the use of drug and mental health courts we will lesson the burden on our criminal justice system and grow from where we were in the 1600’s.
References
Hartwell, S. (2003). Short-term outcomes for offenders with mental illness released from incarceration. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 47(2), 145-158. doi:10.1177/0306624X03251093 , Retrieved February 21, 2009 from the Portland State University Library website
Lattimore, P. K., Broner, N., Sherman, R., Frisman, L., & Shafer, M. S. (2003). A comparison of prebooking and postbooking diversion programs for mentally ill substance-using individuals with justice involvement. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 19(1), 30-64. doi:10.1177/1043986202239741, Retrieved February 21, 2009 from the Portland State University Library website
Lurigio, A. J., Fallon, J. R., & Dincin, J. (2000). Helping the mentally ill in jails adjust to community life: A description of a postrelease ACT program and its clients. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44(5), 532-548. doi:10.1177/0306624X00445002, Retrieved February 21, 2009 from the Portland State University Library website
Nored, L. S., & Carlan, P. E. (2008). Success of drug court programs: Examination of the perceptions of drug court personnel. Criminal Justice Review, 33(3), 329-342. doi:10.1177/0734016808322050, Retrieved October 11, 2008 from the Portland State University Library website
White, M. D., Goldkamp, J. S., & Campbell, S. P. (2006). Co-occurring mental illness and substance abuse in the criminal justice system: Some implications for local jurisdictions. The Prison Journal, 86(3), 301-326. doi:10.1177/0032885506290852, Retrieved February 21, 2009 from the Portland State University Library website
Depending on research methodology, mentally ill adults represent 7% to 18% of arrested, jailed, in prison or under-supervision populations in the United States. Many policy makers agree that people with mental illness or substance abuse disorders who commit misdemeanors should be given access to the necessary treatment. (Cowell, et. al, 2004).
The potential advantages of such treatment to the participants include improved mental health functioning, reduced substance use, and reduced criminal justice recidivism (Cowell, et. al, 2004). In addition, treatment programs may possibly reduce overcrowding of prisons and jails. Thus, possibly alleviating some of the costs associated with housing inmates.
A study conducted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration (SAMHSA) examined the cost effectiveness of four jail diversion programs, (located in Lane County, Oregon; Memphis, Tennessee; New York City; and Tucsan, Arizona)it was found that the treatment domain greatly influenced cost differences (Cowell, et.al, 2004). Diversion to a treatment program was most often associated with a reduction in self-reported measures of criminal behavior and substance use within 30 days. In a varied amount of cases, mental health was also improved. (Cowell, et. al, 2004).
Resource
Cowell, A., Broner, N., Dupont, R. (2004). The Cost-Effectiveness of Criminal Justice Diversion Programs for People with Serious Mental Illness Co-Occurring With Substance Abuse. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, vol. 20, no.3, pp. 292-314.
Some of the social problems that may arise within the criminal justice system when dealing with mentally ill offenders are the issues of public safety, the restraint and control of violence, the widespread use of authority, individual rights, and the cooperation, or lack thereof, between the mental health system and the criminal justice system. (Lamb et. al, 1999, pg. 907). Cost effectiveness and efficacy of treatment can also be potentially problematic. In addition to the many social problems that may arise, the economic consequences of incarcerating mentally ill individuals can prove dire. Lamb et. al (1999) notes that a clear treatment philosophy must exist between the criminal justice system and the mental health system that denotes the purpose and goals of the treatment of mentally ill offenders that incorporates both public safety and individual rights. I must agree with many of the previous posters when I say that a new policy must be taken when we are dealing with mentally ill individuals who commit crimes.
Lamb, H.R., Weinberger, L.E., & Gross, B.H. (1999) Community treatment of severely mentally ill offenders under the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system: a review [Electronic version]. Psychiatric Services, 50, 907-913.
In the last decade there have been significant developments in the criminal justice system regarding initiatives to divert people with mental disorders into treatment. Few empirical data exist regarding these initiatives, despite their rapid adoption by jurisdictions in the United States and elsewhere (Petrila, 2005). Depending on the severity of the mental illness it can affect the length of the sentence, and whether an offender will go to prison or a state run mental facility. If an inmate is diagnosed with a mental disorder they should be separated from the general population. It is also important to determine whether the mental illness in anyway played a part in the commission of the crime. If so this should be taken into account when sentencing an offender. We must also not use prisons as a convenient place to store ‘criminals’ who in reality need the services provided by a mental health facility. Gary Whitmer’s 1980 study of 500 mentally ill people, charged with crimes, emphasized the cause and effect relationship between the person’s mental illness and his/her crime. Whitmer (1980) found that only 6 percent of these incarcerated mentally ill had received any treatment, proving that the deinstitutionalization had only forced a large number of patients into the criminal justice system.
Petrila, J (2005). “Diversion from the criminal justice system”. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, Vol. 23, No.2, pp.161-293, 2005
Alex Hulbert wrote “If an inmate is diagnosed with a mental disorder they should be separated from the general population. It is also important to determine whether the mental illness in anyway played a part in the commission of the crime. If so this should be taken into account when sentencing an offender.”
I agree with you Alex. I believe mentally ill offenders should be housed separately from general population in prisons. The vulnerablity of a mentally ill person makes them potential targets, not only physically but mentally. Ideally, mental health treatment (including necessary medication) would be available to inmates with mental illness. It would be in the best interest of a community to “treat” the illness, rather than ignore or “medicate” it. As many of the inmates will someday transition back into the community.
Lynn, I’m glad you brought up President Jimmy Carter’s Commission on Mental Health. The initiative to treat the mentally ill with more humanity and to release them from sanatoriums had noble motivations. The situation that the society faces now-prisons overrun with mentally ill who would be better served in a hospital setting is an unfortunate unintended consequence of those actions. From the articles, examining the subject it appears that there is a real concern among prison staff to get the mentally ill within their walls the proper help. But they have a sense of powerlessness over the situation due to the lack of resources and alternatives. The overriding theme seen throughout is that prisons are the new asylums. In no way should our criminal justice system be burdened with this task. Reform is direly needed so that prisons can concentrate on rehabilitation and the mentally ill can get the services they require without regressing to a time before the sixties.
There are some 283,800 (16%) inmates in the jails and prisons that have been indentified as having some type of mental illness. The jails and prisons of this country house more mentally ill people than all of the other programs combined. This has effectively turned the jails and prisons into the new mental institutions of the country.
This shift from the hospitals to the criminal justice systems started when the government started closing state-run hospitals in the 1980’s. Those people suffering from mental illnesses had nowhere to go and without proper treatment many ended up in the last place anyone wanted them to be, jails and prisons.
This overflow of the mentally ill has over burdened the already full prison system. In 1985 all jails were about 85% of their capacity rising to 111% by 1987. This overcrowding negatively affects the efficiency and function of the jail/prison system. The admission process is rushed and many of the mentally ill inmates are overlooked and consequently slip through without being properly diagnosed or treated.
The perception is that the mentally ill commit more violent crimes then those offenders who are not mentally ill. Studies have shown the mentally ill commit violent acts at about the same rate as other offenders. There are some mentally ill offenders that represent a significant risk to themselves and others therefore should be in a correctional facility. However, most of the mentally ill are arrested on minor and non-violent offenses. In one survey 29% of the jail showed they were holding mentally ill persons without any charges. It seems some were in jail because community programs either did not exist or there was a lack the funding to effectively deal with them. Half of the mentally ill inmates had experienced 3 or 4 prior incarcerations.
A mentally-ill offender must be found competent by the trial court before s/he is allowd to stand trial. There is debate over the Dusky standard for competency and whether the standard is valid and fair to both the individual and the state interests.
Thanks,
Maria
David Killeen wrote, “[The] shift from the hospitals to the criminal justice systems started when the government started closing state-run hospitals in the 1980’s. Those people suffering from mental illnesses had nowhere to go and without proper treatment many ended up in the last place anyone wanted them to be, jails and prisons. This overflow of the mentally ill has over burdened the already full prison system.”
I believe that the burdened prison system is in dire need of reform in regards to being the new mental institutions of our our society. Drug offenders must usually attend AA or NA meetings; domestic violence offenders must usually attend anger management sessions; drunk driving offenders sometimes have an intensive drug/sobriety court available to them; why shouldn’t mentally ill offenders receive any less options for treatment? Any mentally ill offender should be have mandatory treatment. Many mentally ill offenders re-enter society without the proper treatment and they cycle starts all over.
I completely agree with you Chanelle, there needs to be mandatory treatment for those who are mentally ill. There also needs to be more hospitals for them, because they are not the same as sane criminals. Mixing the mentally ill in with others could pose problems. They have special needs that may not be met by being in prison rather than a state hospital.
David wrote that “There are some 283,800 (16%) inmates in the jails and prisons that have been identified as having some type of mental illness”. This was not something I was previously aware of. While I knew that there were a significant number of mentally ill inmates, I was surprised that the percentage was so high. I was also surprised that based on one survey “29% of the jail showed they were holding mentally ill persons without any charges.” That these people are being held simply because there is no where better for them to go is absolutely unacceptable. There needs to be an alternative to helping the mentally ill lead as productive a life as is possible for them.
I don’t think that it is appropriate for the mentally ill to be held to the same standards and punishments as the rest of us. While I do think that they should be punished and held to some standards I don’t think that simply throwing them in jail is the right answer.
Mental illnesses are disorders of the brain that disrupt a person’s thinking, feeling, moods, and ability to relate to others. Mental illnesses are brain disorders resulting in a diminished capacity for coping with the demands of life. Therefore, because mentally ill individuals are unable to fully comprehend the severity of their actions, they should not be imprisoned for committing a crime. Burns (2008) states, “Being mentally ill can get you arrested, thrown in jail and kept confined for months in a terrifying place that does nothing to improve your mental health. Once released, you’re likely to repeat that pattern again and again.” Instead, the author suggests that treatment facilities that are specifically trained in effectively assisting mentally ill would be better suited for these types of offenders.
Reference:
Burns, K.S. (2008, May 19) Mental health organization and research. Criminal insanity. http://karisable.com/crmh.htm Retrieved date: February 22, 2009
It is estimated that in 1999 there were 2.5 million juvenile arrests nationwide. Juveniles in the juvenile justice system have multiple problems including serious emotional disorders, addiction to alcohol and other controlled substance, learning and development disability. More youth in custody—high recidivism, delinquency, truancy, and poor education. It cost the State less for Treatment Programs than incarceration. Mental Health Assessment for all juvenile and adult arrestees’ should be one of the requirements of the criminal justice system. This research concluded that youth might not receive the services needed and the support needed during incarceration or while in supervision. This is an example, of how vulnerable the youth population is and more needed services are necessary to prevent recidivism. Many of the juveniles’ population have history of delinquency and aggressive behavior which are correlation of multiple psychological and environmental issues…. The sooner the youth is evaluated and referred to the appropriate services it reduces the placement of the youth in a juvenile detention center. The objective of this study is to assess the youth and to prevent out-of-community placement and to prevent recidivism. More juveniles could benefit from intensive-community based treatment rather than detention which increase the level of reoffending. Parent/youth positive relationship prevention of substance uses less truancy, less aggression, and delinquency. Compared to the general population, inmates in the United States have high rates of serious illness and substance abuse. According to policy makers people with mental illness that commit misdemeanor should be refer to treatment centers. Appears that overtime the jail and prison are becoming the providers for people with mental illness. According to Cowell et al., “Mental ill adults represent 7% to 18% of arrested, jail, in-prison or under-supervision population in the United States.” People with mental illness who committed crimes that are in custody or release need intensive mental health treatment to reduce recidivism. Jail cost for not-diverted is more than for those diverted. The diversion treatment is cost-effective compare to incarceration. According to researchers mental illness is the bridge to aggression, poor school performance and delinquency among juveniles.
References:
Alexander J. Cowell, Naham Broner, Randolph Dupont. (2004). The Cost-Effectiveness of Criminal Justice Diversion Programs for People With Serious Mental Illness Co-Occurring With Substance Abuse. University of Memphis
Layla McKinnon - Group 2 wrote,
With the closing of most state-run mental health facilities in the 1960’s and reduction in services available to those needing treatment, the burden of dealing with the mentally ill population has been diverted to local criminal justice systems over the last forty years. As a result, increasing numbers of mentally ill offenders, often with substance abuse problems, are being arrested for drug, disorder and quality-of-life crimes. This places an enormous financial burden on already cash-strapped law enforcement agencies and contributes to the jail and prison overcrowding problem. While many argue that this amounts to the “criminalization of mental illness,” criminal justice agencies are left with no choice but to take on a new population of inmates whose needs they are neither trained nor have the resources to meet (White, Goldkamp & Campbell, 2006, p.302). In a comparison of individuals arrested and those detained on mental holds, White et al (2006) found that the latter group is at greater risk for reoffending and repeated contacts with police. Clearly, those with mental health issues spend more time locked up and result in greater incarceration costs. Furthermore, because their conditions go untreated, this becomes a repetitive cycle. The social and fiscal consequences of deinstitutionalization make it obvious that a different approach is needed.
Reference:
White, M. D., Goldkamp, J. S. & Campbell, S. P. (2006). Co-occurring mental
illness and substance abuse in the criminal justice system: some
implications for local jurisdictions. The Prison Journal, 86(3), 301-326. doi:10.1177/0032885506290852
Link | February 21st, 2009 at 12:06 am
Ann Swab - Group 3 wrote,
According to the 2000 article, Helping The Mentally Ill In Jails Adjust To Community Life: A Description Of A Post Release ACT Program And Its Clients, by the authors, Arthur J. Lurigio
John R. Fallon, and Jerry Dincin, it was common practice in the 1600’s for mentally ill persons to be incarcerated. This was because the community believed the persons to be “dangerous to the peace or safety of the good people” in the community (Lurigo et. al., 2000, pg 534). The policy to incarcerate the mentally ill continued through the 1830’s when the public finally “expressed outrage” at the use of these facilities to just house the mentally ill persons. However we have now come full circle and once again we are criminalizing the mentally ill persons instead of properly taking care of them (Lurigo et. al., 2000, pg 534).
Although this is not a new issue, current policies and procedures have created a challenge for our police, court and corrections in dealing with the ever increasing interactions with mentally ill and drug addicted criminals (White et. al., 2006, pg. 301). Michael D. White, John S. Goldkamp and Suzanne P. Campbell’s 2006 article Co-Occurring Mental Illness And Substance Abuse In The Criminal Justice System: Some Implications For Local Jurisdictions, reports that the 1999 Bureau of Justice Statistics data shows, “16% of all state prison and local jail inmates and 7% of federal prisoners” are mentally ill (pg 302). In addition, it is acknowledged that many of these persons have the compounding factor of drug abuse issues (pg. 302).
Once again our system is criminalizing persons with mental illnesses (White et. al., 2006, pg. 302). We are dealing with mentally ill persons basically by default as our other social service agencies that should be assisting these persons have become the “institution of last resort” (White et. al., 2006, pg 304). With the lack of mental health and drug abuse services in the criminal justice system, these persons are most likely not going to receive the care and help that they need (White et. al., 2006, pg 305; Lurigio, A. J. et al, 2000, pg. 534). Therefore, we are not fixing the problem we are adding to it.
Our system has become the revolving door for criminals with mental illnesses/drug abuse issues (White et. al., 2006, pg 306; Lurigio, A. J. et al, 2000, pg. 534). No only are they repeat offenders, they receive sentences for longer periods of time and because of mandated sentencing in association with their mental health, they usually serve them out (Hartwell, 2003, pg. 146)
In essence we are only spending a significant amount of time and money housing mentally ill and drug addicted persons instead of attempting to truly help them. This is a problem for every community as when a person is convicted of a crime they are also eventually released back into our community (Hartwell, 2003, pg 145). There are several communities that are attempting to fix this problem.
The analysis entitled, A Comparison of Prebooking and Postbooking Diversion Programs for Mentally Ill Substance-Using Individuals With Justice Involvement, conducted by Lattimore et. al. (2003) evaluated several different programs what were trying to find a solution.
Lattimore et al, (2003, pgs. 38-39) describe a Lane County, Oregon program (Co-Occurring Diversion Program) as a post booking program where trained officers screen all persons being booked into the Lane County Jail for mental and/or substance abuse disorders. Those who are identified by the corrections officers are then evaluated by jail mental health professionals. The persons who are confirmed to have problems are then offered entry into the program. No only to they have to volunteer for the program, the prosecuting attorney has to agree for them to enter it. The person then pleads out their case, attends treatment as recommended by officials. Once they have successfully completed their treatment program the judge can dismiss the charges against them. There are many community-based agencies and the community mental health clinics that provide integrated treatment for the diversion clients.
Even though the Lane County Program is more of a “drug court”, this issue/disorder is directly related to the mental health issues (White et. al., 2006, pg. 302). Lane County’s Drug court was not the first program of this kind.
In 1989, the first drug court was opened in Dade Count Florida. According to the National Drug Control Policy, the problem solving drug court was developed to address “rapidly increasing recidivism rates” of drug defendants. (http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/enforce/drugcourt.html) In brief, the drug court program takes non violent offenders who are users/addicts and offers the offenders an alternative to incarceration. The court acknowledges that the underlying contributor for most of these offenders is their addiction to drugs.
The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) website explains that drug courts help break the vicious cycle of drug abuse and recidivism. This shows recognition that the addict needs to receive substance abuse treatment and if the drug use/abuse issue is taken care of we then increase the possibility of stopping the revolving door of the criminal justice system.
The 2005 annual report from the ONDCP, the research (evidence) shows that, “Drug courts outperform virtually all other strategies that have been attempted for drug involved offenders” and “drug use and criminal behavior are substantially reduced while offenders are participating in drug court” (http://www.ndci.org/publications/10697_PaintPict_fnl4.pdf).
Lisa Nored’s review of several studies conducted in the early years of 2000 showed that the researcher’s concluded that drug courts are successful. That offender re-arrest rates are significantly decreased when compared to their others who did not participate in drug courts. This was especially true for violent offenses. (Nored, 2008 pg 330)
Arizona, Hawaii and New York also have programs similar to Lane County’s program which is more specifically designed for the treatment of mental health issues (Lattimore et al, 2003, pgs. 39-40). The post booking programs here again, offer a way to ensure that the persons who have mental health issues are diverted to the appropriate care facility and program instead of just being housed in the criminal justice system. The Comparison between the post booking and pre booking programs that are available in various areas show that these types of programs are helping (Lattimore et al, 2003, pgs 58-59).
It is clear that there are programs and other solutions to assist those persons with mental illness and drug abuse issues. If we continue to facilitate the use of drug and mental health courts we will lesson the burden on our criminal justice system and grow from where we were in the 1600’s.
References
Hartwell, S. (2003). Short-term outcomes for offenders with mental illness released from incarceration. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 47(2), 145-158. doi:10.1177/0306624X03251093 , Retrieved February 21, 2009 from the Portland State University Library website
Lattimore, P. K., Broner, N., Sherman, R., Frisman, L., & Shafer, M. S. (2003). A comparison of prebooking and postbooking diversion programs for mentally ill substance-using individuals with justice involvement. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 19(1), 30-64. doi:10.1177/1043986202239741, Retrieved February 21, 2009 from the Portland State University Library website
Lurigio, A. J., Fallon, J. R., & Dincin, J. (2000). Helping the mentally ill in jails adjust to community life: A description of a postrelease ACT program and its clients. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44(5), 532-548. doi:10.1177/0306624X00445002, Retrieved February 21, 2009 from the Portland State University Library website
Nored, L. S., & Carlan, P. E. (2008). Success of drug court programs: Examination of the perceptions of drug court personnel. Criminal Justice Review, 33(3), 329-342. doi:10.1177/0734016808322050, Retrieved October 11, 2008 from the Portland State University Library website
Office of National Drug Control Policy in regard to Drug Courts retrieved on October 25, 2008 from http://www.ondcp.gov/treat/screen_brief_intv.html
Office of National Drug Control Policy article Painting the Current Picture: A National Report Card on Drug Courts and Other Problem Solving Court Programs in the United States, retrieved on November 2, 2008 from http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/enforce/drugcourt.html and http://www.ndci.org/publications/10697_PaintPict_fnl4.pdf
White, M. D., Goldkamp, J. S., & Campbell, S. P. (2006). Co-occurring mental illness and substance abuse in the criminal justice system: Some implications for local jurisdictions. The Prison Journal, 86(3), 301-326. doi:10.1177/0032885506290852, Retrieved February 21, 2009 from the Portland State University Library website
Link | February 21st, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Katie Hayes Group 2 wrote,
Depending on research methodology, mentally ill adults represent 7% to 18% of arrested, jailed, in prison or under-supervision populations in the United States. Many policy makers agree that people with mental illness or substance abuse disorders who commit misdemeanors should be given access to the necessary treatment. (Cowell, et. al, 2004).
The potential advantages of such treatment to the participants include improved mental health functioning, reduced substance use, and reduced criminal justice recidivism (Cowell, et. al, 2004). In addition, treatment programs may possibly reduce overcrowding of prisons and jails. Thus, possibly alleviating some of the costs associated with housing inmates.
A study conducted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration (SAMHSA) examined the cost effectiveness of four jail diversion programs, (located in Lane County, Oregon; Memphis, Tennessee; New York City; and Tucsan, Arizona)it was found that the treatment domain greatly influenced cost differences (Cowell, et.al, 2004). Diversion to a treatment program was most often associated with a reduction in self-reported measures of criminal behavior and substance use within 30 days. In a varied amount of cases, mental health was also improved. (Cowell, et. al, 2004).
Resource
Cowell, A., Broner, N., Dupont, R. (2004). The Cost-Effectiveness of Criminal Justice Diversion Programs for People with Serious Mental Illness Co-Occurring With Substance Abuse. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, vol. 20, no.3, pp. 292-314.
Link | February 22nd, 2009 at 11:22 am
Angelica Mejia-Rutland wrote,
Some of the social problems that may arise within the criminal justice system when dealing with mentally ill offenders are the issues of public safety, the restraint and control of violence, the widespread use of authority, individual rights, and the cooperation, or lack thereof, between the mental health system and the criminal justice system. (Lamb et. al, 1999, pg. 907). Cost effectiveness and efficacy of treatment can also be potentially problematic. In addition to the many social problems that may arise, the economic consequences of incarcerating mentally ill individuals can prove dire. Lamb et. al (1999) notes that a clear treatment philosophy must exist between the criminal justice system and the mental health system that denotes the purpose and goals of the treatment of mentally ill offenders that incorporates both public safety and individual rights. I must agree with many of the previous posters when I say that a new policy must be taken when we are dealing with mentally ill individuals who commit crimes.
Lamb, H.R., Weinberger, L.E., & Gross, B.H. (1999) Community treatment of severely mentally ill offenders under the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system: a review [Electronic version]. Psychiatric Services, 50, 907-913.
Link | February 22nd, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Alex Hurlbert wrote,
In the last decade there have been significant developments in the criminal justice system regarding initiatives to divert people with mental disorders into treatment. Few empirical data exist regarding these initiatives, despite their rapid adoption by jurisdictions in the United States and elsewhere (Petrila, 2005). Depending on the severity of the mental illness it can affect the length of the sentence, and whether an offender will go to prison or a state run mental facility. If an inmate is diagnosed with a mental disorder they should be separated from the general population. It is also important to determine whether the mental illness in anyway played a part in the commission of the crime. If so this should be taken into account when sentencing an offender. We must also not use prisons as a convenient place to store ‘criminals’ who in reality need the services provided by a mental health facility. Gary Whitmer’s 1980 study of 500 mentally ill people, charged with crimes, emphasized the cause and effect relationship between the person’s mental illness and his/her crime. Whitmer (1980) found that only 6 percent of these incarcerated mentally ill had received any treatment, proving that the deinstitutionalization had only forced a large number of patients into the criminal justice system.
Petrila, J (2005). “Diversion from the criminal justice system”. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, Vol. 23, No.2, pp.161-293, 2005
Torrey, E. F. (1997). Out of the shadows: confronting America’s mental illness crisis. New
York: John Wiley & Sons. Retrieved February 20, 2009, from
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/asylums/special/excerpt.html
Link | February 22nd, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Michelle Baglioni-Group One wrote,
Alex Hulbert wrote “If an inmate is diagnosed with a mental disorder they should be separated from the general population. It is also important to determine whether the mental illness in anyway played a part in the commission of the crime. If so this should be taken into account when sentencing an offender.”
I agree with you Alex. I believe mentally ill offenders should be housed separately from general population in prisons. The vulnerablity of a mentally ill person makes them potential targets, not only physically but mentally. Ideally, mental health treatment (including necessary medication) would be available to inmates with mental illness. It would be in the best interest of a community to “treat” the illness, rather than ignore or “medicate” it. As many of the inmates will someday transition back into the community.
Link | February 22nd, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Melissa Forsythe-Group 1 wrote,
Lynn, I’m glad you brought up President Jimmy Carter’s Commission on Mental Health. The initiative to treat the mentally ill with more humanity and to release them from sanatoriums had noble motivations. The situation that the society faces now-prisons overrun with mentally ill who would be better served in a hospital setting is an unfortunate unintended consequence of those actions. From the articles, examining the subject it appears that there is a real concern among prison staff to get the mentally ill within their walls the proper help. But they have a sense of powerlessness over the situation due to the lack of resources and alternatives. The overriding theme seen throughout is that prisons are the new asylums. In no way should our criminal justice system be burdened with this task. Reform is direly needed so that prisons can concentrate on rehabilitation and the mentally ill can get the services they require without regressing to a time before the sixties.
Link | February 22nd, 2009 at 5:26 pm
David Killeen wrote,
There are some 283,800 (16%) inmates in the jails and prisons that have been indentified as having some type of mental illness. The jails and prisons of this country house more mentally ill people than all of the other programs combined. This has effectively turned the jails and prisons into the new mental institutions of the country.
This shift from the hospitals to the criminal justice systems started when the government started closing state-run hospitals in the 1980’s. Those people suffering from mental illnesses had nowhere to go and without proper treatment many ended up in the last place anyone wanted them to be, jails and prisons.
This overflow of the mentally ill has over burdened the already full prison system. In 1985 all jails were about 85% of their capacity rising to 111% by 1987. This overcrowding negatively affects the efficiency and function of the jail/prison system. The admission process is rushed and many of the mentally ill inmates are overlooked and consequently slip through without being properly diagnosed or treated.
The perception is that the mentally ill commit more violent crimes then those offenders who are not mentally ill. Studies have shown the mentally ill commit violent acts at about the same rate as other offenders. There are some mentally ill offenders that represent a significant risk to themselves and others therefore should be in a correctional facility. However, most of the mentally ill are arrested on minor and non-violent offenses. In one survey 29% of the jail showed they were holding mentally ill persons without any charges. It seems some were in jail because community programs either did not exist or there was a lack the funding to effectively deal with them. Half of the mentally ill inmates had experienced 3 or 4 prior incarcerations.
Link | February 22nd, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Maria Ochoa wrote,
A mentally-ill offender must be found competent by the trial court before s/he is allowd to stand trial. There is debate over the Dusky standard for competency and whether the standard is valid and fair to both the individual and the state interests.
Thanks,
Maria
Link | February 22nd, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Chanelle Bouwmeester - Team 1 wrote,
David Killeen wrote, “[The] shift from the hospitals to the criminal justice systems started when the government started closing state-run hospitals in the 1980’s. Those people suffering from mental illnesses had nowhere to go and without proper treatment many ended up in the last place anyone wanted them to be, jails and prisons. This overflow of the mentally ill has over burdened the already full prison system.”
I believe that the burdened prison system is in dire need of reform in regards to being the new mental institutions of our our society. Drug offenders must usually attend AA or NA meetings; domestic violence offenders must usually attend anger management sessions; drunk driving offenders sometimes have an intensive drug/sobriety court available to them; why shouldn’t mentally ill offenders receive any less options for treatment? Any mentally ill offender should be have mandatory treatment. Many mentally ill offenders re-enter society without the proper treatment and they cycle starts all over.
Link | February 22nd, 2009 at 11:06 pm
Lodi Presley wrote,
I completely agree with you Chanelle, there needs to be mandatory treatment for those who are mentally ill. There also needs to be more hospitals for them, because they are not the same as sane criminals. Mixing the mentally ill in with others could pose problems. They have special needs that may not be met by being in prison rather than a state hospital.
Link | February 22nd, 2009 at 11:34 pm
Christy Holodnak - Group Two wrote,
David wrote that “There are some 283,800 (16%) inmates in the jails and prisons that have been identified as having some type of mental illness”. This was not something I was previously aware of. While I knew that there were a significant number of mentally ill inmates, I was surprised that the percentage was so high. I was also surprised that based on one survey “29% of the jail showed they were holding mentally ill persons without any charges.” That these people are being held simply because there is no where better for them to go is absolutely unacceptable. There needs to be an alternative to helping the mentally ill lead as productive a life as is possible for them.
I don’t think that it is appropriate for the mentally ill to be held to the same standards and punishments as the rest of us. While I do think that they should be punished and held to some standards I don’t think that simply throwing them in jail is the right answer.
Link | February 23rd, 2009 at 12:05 am
Marie Cervantes: Team 1: wrote,
Correction: Week 7
Regards, Marie
Link | February 23rd, 2009 at 12:17 am
Briana Valencia Team 3 wrote,
Mental illnesses are disorders of the brain that disrupt a person’s thinking, feeling, moods, and ability to relate to others. Mental illnesses are brain disorders resulting in a diminished capacity for coping with the demands of life. Therefore, because mentally ill individuals are unable to fully comprehend the severity of their actions, they should not be imprisoned for committing a crime. Burns (2008) states, “Being mentally ill can get you arrested, thrown in jail and kept confined for months in a terrifying place that does nothing to improve your mental health. Once released, you’re likely to repeat that pattern again and again.” Instead, the author suggests that treatment facilities that are specifically trained in effectively assisting mentally ill would be better suited for these types of offenders.
Reference:
Burns, K.S. (2008, May 19) Mental health organization and research. Criminal insanity.
http://karisable.com/crmh.htm Retrieved date: February 22, 2009
Link | February 23rd, 2009 at 12:46 am
Wurzburg, D---Group 3 wrote,
It is estimated that in 1999 there were 2.5 million juvenile arrests nationwide. Juveniles in the juvenile justice system have multiple problems including serious emotional disorders, addiction to alcohol and other controlled substance, learning and development disability. More youth in custody—high recidivism, delinquency, truancy, and poor education. It cost the State less for Treatment Programs than incarceration. Mental Health Assessment for all juvenile and adult arrestees’ should be one of the requirements of the criminal justice system. This research concluded that youth might not receive the services needed and the support needed during incarceration or while in supervision. This is an example, of how vulnerable the youth population is and more needed services are necessary to prevent recidivism. Many of the juveniles’ population have history of delinquency and aggressive behavior which are correlation of multiple psychological and environmental issues…. The sooner the youth is evaluated and referred to the appropriate services it reduces the placement of the youth in a juvenile detention center. The objective of this study is to assess the youth and to prevent out-of-community placement and to prevent recidivism. More juveniles could benefit from intensive-community based treatment rather than detention which increase the level of reoffending. Parent/youth positive relationship prevention of substance uses less truancy, less aggression, and delinquency. Compared to the general population, inmates in the United States have high rates of serious illness and substance abuse. According to policy makers people with mental illness that commit misdemeanor should be refer to treatment centers. Appears that overtime the jail and prison are becoming the providers for people with mental illness. According to Cowell et al., “Mental ill adults represent 7% to 18% of arrested, jail, in-prison or under-supervision population in the United States.” People with mental illness who committed crimes that are in custody or release need intensive mental health treatment to reduce recidivism. Jail cost for not-diverted is more than for those diverted. The diversion treatment is cost-effective compare to incarceration. According to researchers mental illness is the bridge to aggression, poor school performance and delinquency among juveniles.
References:
Alexander J. Cowell, Naham Broner, Randolph Dupont. (2004). The Cost-Effectiveness of Criminal Justice Diversion Programs for People With Serious Mental Illness Co-Occurring With Substance Abuse. University of Memphis
Link | February 23rd, 2009 at 12:47 am