Need for Reform in Mental Health Courts - Research Paper

Introduction

In the current prison population in the United States, there is diversification of individuals who have a range of complex needs, majorly mental health problems. In order to effectively and appropriately attend to the needs of offenders, there is a great need for early assessment and identification of mental health problems to allow room for justice to be served. However, the increase in the number of individuals with mental health problems in prisons has not been sufficiently addressed. Notably, despite the presence of insanity defense in many states, barriers still exist to either reporting crime, seeking justice, and offering appropriate care to mental health victims. For many years, policies on mental health implementation have not been successful resulting in mental health crisis among law enforcement officers, psychiatrists, and other players. Consequently, jails have turned into some sort of asylums, and such victims lack proper care. Notably, this scenario has been brought about by a number of factors, such as the failure of states to properly fund mental health facilities. The end result of this is that those in need of care end up in correction systems instead of public health facilities where such needs can be met. In general, the current justice system and operations of mental health is in need of reform as it fails to sufficiently address and meets the needs of those with mental health problems.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The Need for Reform in Criminal Justice System

Currently, sufficient care for the mentally ill in jails and prisons has resulted in a crisis not only for the victims but also for the correctional services, the government and the taxpayers in general. According to the Treatment Advocacy Centre, there is a great need to eliminate barriers to the treatment for the mentally ill individuals. According to research published by the organization, in over 44 states in the USA, there are more mentally ill individuals in jails and prisons than the popularly known and largest psychiatric institutions in the country ("Criminalization of Mental Illness") . Further, the data provided indicates that individuals suffering from mental disorders such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are ten times likely to end up in correctional services than in psychiatric hospitals. Ironically, the efforts of many states to address this problem are aimed at diverting people from jail sentences instead of addressing their mental needs. Consequently, the scenario either leaves them unattended or continues to burden the correctional services, and overall high costs to the taxpayers ("Criminalization of Mental Illness"). With such a scenario in existence, there is a great need to address such challenges.

Further, apart from the crisis in the correctional services, there also exist barriers to reporting the crime for the mentally ill individuals. According to McBratney, some of the barriers to reporting crime include accessibility, discrimination, potentially intimidating court process, and the fear of retaliation (McBratney 8). In relation to stigma and discrimination, many mental disorder victims are thought to fear to report the crime because they are perceived as incredible and suffering from delusions. As a result, they end up suffering from confusion, shock, guilt and humiliation, and anger which end up intensifying their mental conditions. Accessibility of support also hinders the likelihood of reporting a crime, as the victims realize that the medical examinations that follow after the reporting may be too demanding and tasks for them (McBratney 8). The due court process is also intimidating to many people with mental disorders, as more often than not, it may result in anxiety that consequently worsens the victim's situation. Despite these barriers, it is important to note that mentally ill individuals are more likely to be offended due to their vulnerability. Some criminal violations against such victims include, among others, rape, sexual assault, robbery with injury, and aggravated assault (McBratney 9). Unfortunately, the lack of a proper support system and victim-friendly justice system for the mentally ill ends up making the situation even worse.

Mental Illnesses and Selection Criteria into Mental Health Courts

There exist many types of mental illnesses that need special attention before individuals are sentenced to serve a jail term of reference to a psychiatric facility. These illnesses include anxiety, bipolar, depression, post-traumatic disorder, psychosis among others. These illnesses need special attention for sentenced individuals, and sentencing them to jails or prisons may worsen their situation. Notably, the criteria for admission to mental health courts are often unclear and complicated (Wolff, et al. 403). The decision-making process involves representation by multiple parties, from the prosecution, psychiatrists, family members among others, who bring to the table diversity in interest and expertise. These selection criteria are often suggestive than deterministic, giving room for bias. Mere argument by the defendant that he/she has a combined mental illness and criminal charge is not sufficient to gain admission into a mental health court (Wolff, et al. 405). Typically, the eligibility criteria require that the defendant has a mental illness which in this case may or may not be categorized as chronic, serious, or persistent, and criminal charges that in nature, are non-violent (often classified as a misdemeanor) (Wolff, et al. 410). The possibility of bias in relation to the selection criteria for one to be admitted into a mental healthy court leaves a big question and a big need for reform.

Necessary Reforms

Insanity defense, although being used as a means to exonerate offenders suffering from mental illnesses, does not sufficiently address and provide justice sufficiently for all cases. Notably, insanity by defense implies not guilty because of insanity. In criminal cases, it is based on the fact that the offender is too impaired due to mental illness, and thus cannot be held as criminally responsible for the crime committed ("Insanity Defense"). If found not guilty under this provision, sentencing is in mental facilities as opposed to correctional facilities, although this may see the offender spending more time than he/she would have spent in a jail or prison. Although this may seem to be an ideal approach in assisting individuals with mental illnesses, the National Alliance of Mental Illness (NAMI) notes that reforms are necessary for relation to the standards under which one is to be declared not guilty by insanity ("Insanity Defense"). Notably, many mentally ill victims end up failing to sufficiently convince the jury of their innocence under this provision. Consequently, they end up in correctional services, which more often than not, do not cater nor address their needs. NAMI proposes that such assessment standards should be based on the current scientific knowledge in relation to mental illness, so as to avoid a miscarriage of justice ("Insanity Defense"). Further, NAMI also suggests that the juries ought to be fully informed of the consequences following the verdict given after the case. This step will allow the offenders to receive a fair verdict, but more importantly, access the required care for his recovery.

Apart from the reforms proposed by the NAMI on the standards for determining one not guilty by insanity defense, a number of reforms are also necessary to allow for just treatment of mentally ill victims. Notably, maximum diversion of persons with various mental illnesses for the criminal justice system is an important approach towards the reduction of human costs of incarceration and involvement, as well as financial and health costs (Mental Health America). According to Mental Health America (MHA), the single most important element for maximum diversion of individuals from the criminal justice system is accurate and timely mental evaluation and screening. In addition, communities should also aim at developing services that meet the needs of such victims("Position Statement 53: Mental Health Courts"). Most importantly, the MHA proposes that local and state authorities should aim at developing and implementing mental health courts early enough. Secondly, there is a great need for eliminating discriminatory punishments and practices against people with mental illnesses. To achieve this, states should aim at providing full insanity defense as one of the ways of ensuring that justice is impartially served to people who are mentally ill (Mental Health America). Defendants with mental illnesses should be acquitted by the insanity defense ground; if the court determines that the individual's mental conditions prevented him from controlling one's behavior or understanding the wrongfulness of the act. Notably, individuals fully acquitted on this ground will end up in psychiatric facilities as opposed to jails and prisons.

Conclusion

In conclusion, in the context of the current justice system and the operation of the mental health court, there is a great need for reform to allow for justice for individuals with mental illnesses. Notably, jails and prisons, as it is at the moments, has more mentally ill victims than any large mental institutions. With this scenario, the care needed for such individuals are insufficient. A number of barriers exist in relation to victims of various offenses suffering from mental diseases, such as discrimination and lack of access to necessary support. Thus, apart from mentally ill offender's failure to receive due to justice, the victims of various offensive acts such as assault end up refraining from seeking justice. Various mental illnesses warrant for the insanity defense in the criminal justice system. However, there exists a great gap, as the selection criteria for admission into mental hospitals is often unclear, and leaves room for bias. Reforms in the criminal justice system will need to address such selection standards for insanity defense plea, maximum diversion for the mentally ill and provision of support for such defendants. Unless a reformed mental health court system is achieved, justice for the mentally ill cannot be served.

Works Cited

Administrator. "Criminalization of Mental Illness." Treatment Advocacy Center, www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/key-issues/criminalization-of-mental-illness. Accessed 11 Apr. 2019.

"Criminalization of Mental Illness." Treatment Advocacy Center, www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/key-issues/criminalization-of-mental-illness. Accessed 11 Apr. 2019.

"Insanity Defense." NAMI: National Alliance on Mental Illness, www.nami.org/Learn-More/Mental-Health-Public-Policy/Insanity-Defense. Accessed 11 Apr. 2019.

McBratney, Liz. "Trauma and Victimization." Visions Journal, vol. 3, no. 3, 2000, pp. 8-9, www.heretohelp.bc.ca/visions/trauma-and-victimization-vol3/victimization-of-people-with-mental-illness. Accessed 11 Apr. 2019.

Mental Health America. "Mental Health and Criminal Justice Issues." Mental Health America, 22 Aug. 2016, www.mentalhealthamerica.net/issues/mental-health-and-criminal-justice-issues. Accessed 11 Apr. 2019.

"Position Statement 53: Mental Health Courts." Mental Health America, 11 Dec. 2014, www.mentalhealthamerica.net/positions/mental-health-courts. Accessed 11 Apr. 2019.

Wolff, Nancy, et al. "Mental health courts and their selection processes: Modeling variation for consistency." Law and Human Behavior, vol. 35, no. 5, 2011, pp. 402-412.