Restorative Justice Model Of Mental Health Courts

Transcription

1 From the SelectedWorks of D'Andre Lampkin Spring April, 2016 Restorative Justice Model Of Mental Health Courts D'Andre D Lampkin, National University This work is licensed under a Creative Commons CC_BY-NC-ND International License. Available at: 4/

2 Running Head: Mental Health Courts 1 Restorative Justice Model: Mental Health Courts D Andre Lampkin National University

3 Mental Health Courts 2 Abstract The purpose of this essay is to discuss the role Mental Health Courts have played and continue to play in the judicial system. The paper will also address the pros and cons of mental health courts and results of their existence as they relate to steering wards of the court to appropriate treatment.

4 Mental Health Courts 3 Mental Health Courts Introduction Mental health courts are components of the judiciary system that endeavor to resolve cases involving offenders who are diagnosed as mentally ill. Mental health courts are generally opened to individuals who have a documented diagnoses and whose behavior is a result of their mental health condition. The court combines judicial oversight with community mental health programs and other support services such as health, homeless, family, and children services to reduce a person s propensity to commit criminal acts and improve their quality of life. Discussion According to American behavioral scientist Ursula Castellano and Leon Anderson, authors of Mental Health Courts in America: Promise and Challenges, the earliest origins of mental health courts can be found in Marion County, Indiana (Coons & Bowman, 2010). In 1980, Indiana judge Evan Goodman formed the first program where inmates diagnosed with some form of mental illness were removed from the county jail and moved to the Wishard Hospital for mental health assessments. The judge set up a make-shift courtroom on the second floor of the hospital s recreation room. Prior to hearing criminal cases involving the mentally ill, a psychiatrist would conduct a pretrial assessment to determine whether the accused was competent. A forensics team would then be assigned to ensure that the accused, if found guilty, complied with court ordered mental health treatment. The court was disbanded in the 1990 s but it set into motion a series of reform acts to establish similar courts throughout the United States. Shortly thereafter, states like Florida allocated funds for the creation of Mental Health Courts in Broward County. Additional funds were set aside to create a task force whose purpose was to investigate the increased

5 Mental Health Courts 4 number of people diagnosed with a mental illness who were entering the jail system, the lack of in-custody mental health services, and the lack of treatment made available to inmates post release from the custody facility. (Anderson, pg. 164). Much like traditional courts, mental health courts help members of the judiciary fulfill the five major sentencing philosophies. They are restoration, rehabilitation, deterrence, retribution, and incapacitation. Each sentencing philosophies are unique in that they achieve different goals. Restoration seeks to reintroduce defendants into society with skills and resources that will assist them with transitioning successfully into society. Deterrence is accomplished by handing down sentences that discourage defendants who are considering committing another offence. The mentally ill could be placed on parole, probation, or some form of court ordered monitoring. Retribution is the actual act of punishing defendants. Lastly, incapacitation involves sentencing in a manner that virtually does not allow the defendant to commit another crime. Mary Lee Luskin of Indiana University states that defendants who enroll in Mental Health Courts are linked to community based treatment programs and services. The courts attempt to restore and rehabilitate mentally ill offenders by requiring them to attend the program and return for regularly scheduled status hearings to assess compliance with the court order. If the defendant completes the programs and follows through with the services within the allotted period of time, the criminal charges may be dismissed and sentencing may be reduced. Should the defendant be unable to complete the program or comply with the court order, they may be sent back to a regular court (Luskin, 2015).

6 Mental Health Courts 5 Research Approaches and functionality of mental health courts can vary. For example, in 2000, Davidson County, Tennessee started a mental health court whose sole focus was rehabilitation in lieu of punishment (Burke). They used a wide variety of intervention methods such as physical therapy, art therapy, behavior analysis, and psychotropic medications. Defendants were usually referred to the court by a police officer, defense attorney, public defender, probation officers, or case manager. A study was conducted on the effectiveness of the mental health court to determine its effectiveness. The study also focused on two groups: those identified as having a dual diagnoses, and those identified as having a dual diagonis or mental illness alone. For purposes of this study, dual diagnoses is defined as an individual with mental illness and intellectual disability. The following table is an illustration of the sample group: Table 1 Defendants in the mental health court (n = 150) Random sample of defendants (n) Gender: male 56.7% (85) Age Younger than 20 years 6.7% (10) years 30.7% (46) years 25.3% (38) years 28.7% (43) 50 years and older 8.7% (13) Race White 54.0% (81) African-American 42.7% (64) Education levels Less than high school 39.3% (57) High school graduate 35.2% (51) More than high school 25.5% (37) Marital status Married 10.0% (15) Never married 54.7% (82) Divorced/widowed/separated 28.7% (43) Figure1. Random sample of 150 cases illustrating nomenclature of mental health patients allowed to participate in Davidson County Mental Health Court. Data source: Table 1, Burke, M.M., Griggs, M., Dykens, E.M., & Hodapp, R.M. (2012). Defendants with intellectual disabilities and mental health diagnoses: Faring in a mental health court.journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 56(3), p. 307

7 Mental Health Courts 6 As a group, defendants in Davidson County Mental Health Court were primarily charged with assault (51.4%), theft (16.1%), drug possession (8.9%), vandalism (8%) and trespassing (7.1%). Of those defendants whose contact with the court had ended, 32% were considered to have ended successfully, whereas the remainder had been considered to have not been successful. (Burke) The creation of mental health courts has also made it possible for law enforcement agencies to play an active role in getting mentally ill offenders treatment. States like Florida, Alaska, and Indiana are using Mental Health Courts in an effort to couple judicial supervision with community mental health treatment. The courts also link other support services such as housing placement and substance abuse treatment in an effort to reduce criminal activity and elevate the quality of life of its participants. A group of administrators from the Administration of Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research discuss the nomenclature of Crisis Intervention Teams (CIT), the purpose of CIT, expected outcomes, and changes in how the mentally ill interact with CIT-trained officers. The study focused on self-efficacy and social distancing between the mentally ill and law enforcement. Law enforcement s interactions with four major groups were included in the study. The groups included those suffering from depression, cocaine dependence, schizophrenia, and alcohol dependence. What the study found was that individuals in these four groups were more likely to reduce social distance. (Bahora) The study also revealed that, while further research in officer-level outcomes may need to be conducted, members of the four groups were more likely to interact with emergency services when they needed help versus allowing their behavior to evolve to criminal misconduct and subsequent incarceration.

8 Mental Health Courts 7 Below is a sample comparison of states that fund Crisis Intervention Teams and Mental Health Courts and how much of the state is served by the teams and the courts. Figure2. Percentage of state served by CIT (Crisis Intervention Team) and Mental Health Court (MH Court) compared to the percentage of jail inmates and prisoners receiving treatment for severe mental illness. Data source: Treatment Advocacy Center, "State Results": And Mental Illness Policy Org, "More Mentally Ill Persons Are in Jails and Prisons Than Hospitals: A Survey of the States": The data comes from statistics gathered between the years of 2005 and 2013 and derive from two sources. The Treatment Advocacy Center advocates for the restoration of psychiatric treatment centers in the United States. The organization focuses on making recommendations for policy makers that steer the mentally ill away from jail and prisons and into mental health treatment facilities. Mental Illness Policy Org was founded by DJ Jaffe, former board member of NAMI (National Alliance on Mental Illness). It should be noted that the graph presents the most recent data available. Much of the topic has never been explored in depth. It is important to take into account the information's historical relevance when examining the findings. Crisis Intervention Teams and Mental Health Courts are fairly new. It is also important to take into account inconsistences in law enforcement research and reporting requirements. Law enforcement

9 Mental Health Courts 8 agencies voluntarily provide certain statistics to federal agencies. Despite short term research, preliminary results suggest that the use of CIT and Mental Health Courts, proportionately, vary from state to state. However, the data does support the idea that law enforcement agencies efforts to invest in and expand Crisis Intervention Teams are a priority. The interdisciplinary approach enables law enforcement agencies to divert low level offenders facing mental illness away from the jail and prison system and into community-based treatment facilities. Conclusion The purpose of Mental Health Courts is to provide restorative justice for victims and treatment to offenders. It is still unknown if the courts have been successful at preventing future crimes from being committed by offenders allowed to participate in the court. This is likely due to the protections afforded by HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996). Information about treatment, forms of treatment, duration of treatment, and whether or not the patient was in compliance with appointments is not usually shared with individuals outside of the healthcare arena. This limitation includes law enforcement and judicial officials. But what is known, however, is that the use of Mental Health Courts provides an avenue for defendants to receive the treatment they need along with a judicial oversight to expedite services that sometimes takes months to receive.

10 Mental Health Courts 9 References Anderson, L., Peak, T., Hughes, S., Castellano, U., Trawver, K., & Rhoades, S. (n.d.). Homesteading a Pioneer Mental Health Court. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(2), Bahora, M., Hanafi, S., Chien, V.H., Compton, M.T., Administration of Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research (May 2008). Preliminary Evidence of Effects of Crisis Intervention Team Training and Self-Efficacy and Social Distance. Vol. 35(3), pp Burke, M.M., Griggs, M., Dykens, E.M., & Hodapp, R.M. (2012). Defendants with intellectual disabilities and mental health diagnoses: Faring in a mental health court.journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 56(3), 305. Coons, P. M., & Bowman, E. S. (2010). Psychiatry in Indiana: The first 175 years. New York, NY: iuniverse Luskin, M., & Ray, B. (2015). Selection Into Mental Health Court. 42(11),