A Solution to a Contemporary Criminal Justice Issue - Thesis Example

Running Header: A SOLUTION TO A CONTEMPORARY CRIMINAL JUSTICE ISSUE A Solution to a Contemporary Criminal Justice Issue BY YOU YOUR SCHOOL INFO HERE DATE HERE A Solution to a Contemporary Criminal Justice Issue Introduction The criminal justice system has been established to maintain positive social control and to discourage society members from engaging in criminal behavior and the violation of established laws. This system seeks to bring criminal offenses to justice and to improve public security while also bringing to the forefront of public consciousness how a state seeks to find equity and fairness in the system and providing defense for law-abiding society members. The criminal justice system provides sanctions for those who violate established laws, aims to rehabilitate repeat criminal offenders, and mitigate future instances of criminal behavior. While this system has been designed to facilitate a more peaceful and non-violent society, there are challenges with criminal justice in providing rehabilitation for criminal offenders sustaining mental illness problems. There have been dramatic increases in the prevalence of mental illness among the prison population in the United States. In 1996, 25 percent of all individuals incarcerated in jails reported that they had sought treatment for a mental illness condition at some point in their lives, representative of approximately 127,000 jail inmates throughout the nation (Whitehead, Jones and Braswell, 2003). In the 1970s, there was a push to deinstitutionalize the mentally ill within psychiatric hospitals and, instead, to provide the mentally ill with community treatment programs. It was determined during this time period in history that such treatment programs would provide a superior public safety outcome, allow jails to operate more efficiently by removing challenges of rehabilitating mentally ill criminal offenders, and provide the mentally ill with more productive treatment methods that jails are unable to provide (Whitehead, et al.). However, this approach at deinstitutionalizing the mentally ill has not been effective. In 2002, it is estimated that a substantial 64 percent of all jailed inmates in the country suffered from a mental health issue (Whitehead, et al.). Community mental health services are designed to provide encouragement and treatment for people suffering from an array of mental disorders in a domiciliary environment rather than in psychiatric clinics. Such community mental health systems provide appropriate outpatient psychiatric services in an age where social perspectives on mental illness have transformed care from intensive psychotherapy to treatment ideology where the mentally ill have a positive place to live with encouraging social environments that facilitate more effective rehabilitation (Porter, 2006). However, in contemporary society, local budget problems and managerial coordination of these services have somewhat defiled the viability and effectiveness of community mental health services, leading to higher incarceration rates for the mentally disturbed. Community mental health program are not sufficient for identifying the mentally ill, recruiting their participation in these programs, and facilitating longitudinal treatment plans that can assist society members in mental rehabilitation. The movement to deinstitutionalize the mentally ill occurred during a time period where local and state-level budget and treatment competencies were sufficient to negate the psychiatric hospital. Today, however, growing instances of mental illness within a society supersede the ability of the state or local community leaders to provide effective treatment for all mentally ill in need of treatment and rehabilitation. Therefore, the criminal justice problem under investigation is identifying and diagnosing the mentally ill with a propensity to commit criminal behavior. It is unrealistic to assume that all mentally ill individuals in society can be acknowledged and effectively recruited to participate in community mental health programs due to the overwhelming amount of society members facing mental illness challenges in the 21st Century. Rather than having community leadership scan the social environment to identify mentally ill society members sustaining a risk to public safety, mentally ill criminal offenders should be allowed to enter the jail and prison system and be properly diagnosed by psychiatric expertise within the penitentiary system itself. This would require a restructuring of jail and prison operational methodologies, however such a system would be more relevant and productive than attempting to have community mental health program leadership seek proactive strategies to categorize and treat mentally disturbed within American society. Prisons and jails are better equipped with the organizational structure to identify, diagnose and treat the mentally disturbed and should be provided with more funding and should develop innovative mental health treatment programs to mitigate future criminal behavior that is underpinned by mental health problems. A Deeper Comprehension of the Issue It is no longer feasible to expect that state hospitals and community mental health programs can achieve identification, recruitment and treatment of the mentally disturbed in the United States. Correctional facilities have already become the foremost center for mental health care in the country (Fellner, 2006). It is estimated that 1.26 million inmates have measurable mental health problems (James and Glaze, 2006). The increase in incarcerated society members is attributed to the fact that people sustaining psychiatric problems have much more probability of engaging in violent crime than mentally-sound citizens (Appleby, et al., 2001). It would be a considerable economic and labor-based undertaking to have community mental health experts examine the social environment in the United States to identify those with higher risk of criminal behavior founded on mental health disturbances. Therefore, from an economic and social perspective, jails and prisons are ideal environments to conduct diagnosis and treatment of the mentally disturbed. There are three general purposes of jail and prison systems. These include receipt and process of alleged criminal offenders, detain the accused to ensure their appearance at a fair trial, and maintain custodial responsibility for those sentenced to incarceration. It is the long-term custodial obligation of prison officials which requires examination if there is to be a solution to the problem of identifying, diagnosing and treating mental illness. Jails, today, have become professional institutions with relevant management serving as liaisons to external community members, building an internal culture that is cohesive and focused on achieving rehabilitation outcomes, and manages budgets and proper resource allocation (USDOJ, 2007). Jails and prisons must recruit diverse human talents in multiple domains of expertise in order to maintain effective custodial activity, perform qualitative and quantitative performance analyses and relevant rehabilitation-related metrics, mentor and coach jail administration, and ensure staff compliance to various policies and procedures (USDOJ). In every respect, a jail and prison is like a well-structured business operation, considerate of multiple internal strategies aligned with external stakeholder demands (in this case security and social order). Therefore, the culture of jails and prisons in the criminal justice system is one accustomed to change, compliance and sustains an organizational structure that works inter-dependently to achieve the primary goal of prisoner rehabilitation. In the corrections system, relevant administration provides training and support and serves as advocates to ensure the jail receives adequate resources from relevant funding authorities. Therefore, from an operational perspective, prisons and jails represent the most viable environment for the identification, diagnosis and treatment of mentally ill criminal offenders. Community-based programs for mental health treatment are fragmented in terms of team ideologies, resource availability and trained professionals with explicit mental health treatment knowledge. Jails and prisons, however, are self-contained organizational units designed to sustain multiple competencies that can facilitate the complex rehabilitation process. Jails and prisons serving as the relevant diagnosis and care center in the United States is made feasible by Congressional appropriations of $6.86 billion for the prison system (James, 2014). By law, the Bureau of Prisons assures that inmates receive adequate assistance, including mental health treatment, group and individual counseling (James). Hence, jails and prisons maintain pre-established systems and human expertise necessary to facilitate psychological and psychiatric treatment for individuals with mental health conditions. However, research indicates that between 83 and 89 percent of inmates with mental illnesses in America’s prisons and jails are not receiving appropriate treatment and care for their mental disturbances (Acquaviva, 2005). The reason for this is uncertain, especially with considerable federal and state-level appropriations being utilized to fund the diverse jail and prison models and the superior team-based model of operations that facilitates a team-based rehabilitation strategy. Problems Associated with Inmate Mental Health Treatment The problem with community mental health programs is in facilitation. Many of these programs utilize what are referred to as crisis intervention teams (CITs), relevant professionals in policing and psychiatry that are designed to increase the volume of mentally ill citizens referred to relevant psychiatric programs. These CIT professionals are trained to spot those with mental illness problems and act proactively to divert potential criminal behavior and entry into the corrections system; a system known as jail diversion. However, the specific methodologies undertaken to identify mentally ill citizens is unclear. It would theoretically, based on the CIT model, require team operations with relevant policing authorities, experts in the field of psychiatry, general administrative support, and partnership with relevant mental health services representatives to even begin the process of proactive identification of mentally ill citizens. Therefore, allowing those with mental illnesses to enter the corrections system, an operational model with multiple talents for rehabilitation, is the most feasible solution to deterring future criminal behavior by serving as an advocate for mental health treatment of these offenders. The use of crisis intervention teams as part of community mental health treatment programs is plagued with problems, especially from a human rights issue. A landmark Supreme Court case decision in O’Connor v Donaldson (1975) made it illegal for an individual with mental illness deemed not to be a danger to society to be confined and compelled to undergo psychiatric treatment if this individual can maintain lifestyle autonomy safely. A crisis intervention team that identifies an individual suffering from obvious mental illness would have considerable difficulty, based on law established in the Supreme Court, compelling this individual to accompany the intervention team for in-house, longitudinal psychiatric care. Not all individuals in society suffering from mental illness will recognize their need for treatment and, if they are not posing imminent threat to public security, will likely resent or retaliate against efforts by relevant policing officials and other CIT members attempting to coerce the individual to seek treatment. In the jails and prisons, prisoners have very limited rights for refusing treatment, therefore facilitating more effective use of counseling or even psychotropic medication to rehabilitate the mentally ill inmate. The Supreme Court decision in Estelle v Gamble (1976) established that mental health treatment should be considered a minimal obligation of prison administration. J.W. Gamble, the plaintiff in this case, was put on labor assignment as part of his prison rehabilitation program and subsequently was injured during the assignment. The court found that any intentional indifference to the medical needs of prisoners represented the infliction of pain on the prisoner and was a violation of the 8th Amendment. Therefore, the Supreme Court of the United States established a foundation for ensuring that mental illness (a medical need), must be addressed and treated by relevant jail and prison authorities as part of rehabilitation strategy. In community mental health programs, these systems are voluntary and relevant crisis intervention teams and other experts in psychiatry have limited, legally-justified authority to coerce the mentally disturbed to receive adequate treatment and care. In the prison system, these individuals have been incarcerated under a fair and equitable system of peer case evaluation and therefore can be more easily compelled to undergo mental health treatment and counseling without resistance. Estelle v Gamble ensured that treatment and counseling was an obligatory responsibility of jail administration, therefore jails and prisons serve as ideal forums for ensuring adequate mental health treatment over that of community-based programs. Issues Exacerbating Poor Inmate Mental Health Treatment The question, therefore, is why between 83 and 89 percent of inmates with mental health problems are not receiving adequate treatment and counseling. In an environment with such a well-developed mission of total rehabilitation and an operational model that facilitates multiple competencies in providing appropriate care for prisoners, there is likely a problem that is serving as a barrier to this type of care. These problems have been identified by Torrey, et al. (2014) as being jail overcrowding which depletes some dimension of services availability, and behavioral issues of the mentally ill inmate, physical assaults on jail administration and support staff. In some instances, behavioral problems of mentally ill inmates is bizarre, including one case study of an inmate that covered himself in his own feces and tried to escape by flushing himself down the toilet (Torrey, et al.). Yet another inmate was documented at eating the cover of what was considered to be an indestructible padded cell (Torrey, et al.). Hence, the peculiar and rather fantastic behavioral problems of mentally ill prison inmates might be contributing to why such a large volume of inmates are unable to receive the proper treatment. Some mentally ill inmates, additionally, have considerable difficulty adjusting to prison life and manifest these frustrations with antisocial behaviors. Powell, Holt and Fondacaro (1997) found that inmates sustaining a mental illness were twice as likely to engage in assault against others. It is asserted that in some instances of severe behavioral problems caused by acute mental illness, staffing levels must be increased to manage these inmates while these behaviors also create fear with other prisoners and jail administration. Hence, there are budgetary implications that might explain why between 83 and 89 percent of mentally ill inmates are not receiving adequate care even though this is mandated by Supreme Court precedents. Furthermore, many adults with a history of mental illness have not been exposed, in their historical lifestyles, to enduring and encouraging relationships that facilitate positive social and emotional adjustment (McVey, 2001). There are therefore implications that counselors and other relevant experts in psychiatry could have a difficult time attempting to promote a mutual, two-way patient/therapist relationship with an individual sustaining antisocial behaviors or generally resistant to engaging in a nurturing relationship. Furthermore, Metzner (1993) asserts that some mental illnesses can be treated using non-orthodox programs such as art and music therapy that are facilitated in self-contained therapeutic units. Hence, to facilitate effective treatment, the jail operational model would theoretically require more than just psychologists and psychiatrists, but also experts that can productively administer non-orthodox treatment programs which increases the jail and prison budgets related to recruitment and the tangible ability to carry out individualized, private therapeutic units. Privacy in mental health treatment should be a priority in the prison system, according to Ashford, Sales and Reid (2000), with considerable emphasis on the inmate’s dignity and self-respect. However, in a large prison, overcrowding is a legitimate problem and the ability to meet, sometimes over an elongated period, with all mentally disturbed individuals becomes a laborious challenge. Logistical limitations within the corrections system, such as limited space for such consultations and labor-related budget constraints might be forbidding more intensive counseling and psychotherapy required for mentally ill inmates throughout the country. Not all cases of mental illness can be treated effectively with group counseling methodologies, which would negate some degree of logistical challenges for treating mental illness in the prison system. Therefore, maximizing available space for group counseling programs does not take into consideration the potential effectiveness outcomes of this strategy nor the privacy considerations that some inmates would expect to ensure self-dignity. A Proposed Solution Community mental health treatment systems are inadequate to identify, diagnose and treat all mentally ill members of society. However, it is a considerable issue considering the statistics that mentally ill persons have more probability of engaging in criminal behavior than the general population of better-adjusted citizens. Identifying higher-risk groups for mental illness, therefore, is most logical through the jail and prison systems in the United States, which has been established. This is due to the internal competencies of jail leadership, legal frameworks mandating mental illness treatment as an obligation in the prison system, and established organizational models that are accustomed to change and the facilitation of such treatment. The problem, however, is ensuring that the 83 to 89 percent of mentally ill criminals actually receive appropriate care. The first problem is funding for jail and prison-centric treatment program development. Executive level jail administrators and municipal actors in society have an opportunity to lobby the federal government to increase funding to the prison system, a right under American law (Alexander, Mazza and Scholz, 2009). Lobbying is a coercive effort to convince lawmakers that the government should be more considerate of a particular agenda. In the prison system, current funding appropriations for prisons are inadequate to address special needs inmates facing moderate or severe mental health disturbances. In 2014, the government reported three trillion dollars in revenues and discretionary spending obligations of only 1.16 trillion, 55 percent of which is allocated to the military services (National Priorities Project, 2015). Persistent lobbying of lawmakers could convince Congress to re-allocate military spending and re-route funds for jail and prison mental illness treatment program development. In total, the United States, under the current budget structure, allocates $610 billion in defense, which is more than the spending on defense in Russia, China, the United Kingdom, France, India and Germany combined (Peterson, 2015). The government has been criticized for maintaining such a high budgetary expenditure on military operations and services in a global environment where new threats to national security are not as foreboding as in previous decades (Peterson). The government continues to allocate such substantial resources to the military under a model where threats stemmed from Cold War concerns and threat of nuclear annihilation which is much less prevalent in a more civilized and globalized world. According to statistics, entities that devote labor and expenditure in the lobbying process achieve substantial return on investment in drawing more government attention to an entity’s respective agendas (Bernabe, 2015). Through partnership with various justice reform organizations such as The California Coalition for Women Prisoners, A New Way of Life Re-Entry Project and Power Inside (to name only a few), lobbying activities can be more influential and persuasive when accompanied with a solid plan for changing prison system operations to facilitate more effective mental health counseling and psychiatric services. The exact funding requirements for providing more quality and pervasive mental health services to inmates cannot be determined without an in-depth, quantitative investigation of America’s prison logistic frameworks and new treatment methodological requirements. However, lobbying government representatives with information and statistics could illustrate how mental health services, in prison and jails, legitimately enhances positive, non-criminal behaviors in the future. Reallocation of only three percent of military spending would equate to an additional $18 billion in funding, on top of the current $6.86 billion already allocated to the prison system, and would provide ample opportunities to ensure that mentally ill criminals receive the proper treatment and counseling required as mandated by Supreme Court precedents. This funding would provide opportunities for recruiting relevant counselors, psychiatrists and other support staff required to carry out new treatment methodologies in-house at America’s prisons. A lower-cost peer support system as an appropriate methodology in the corrections system could also facilitate implementing treatment to more inmates suffering from mental illness. Research is supportive that peer encouragement and support improves one’s ability to cope, facilitates more adherence to medication dosing, improves self-esteem, and increases employability upon re-entry into society (Solomon, 2004). The basic premise of this type of peer support network is to have an individual who successfully mastered a mental condition to mentor others and share their learning experiences. A 2012 study found that peer support agents can function at the same efficacy levels as experts in mental health services (Davidson, 2012). If a corrections organization does not maintain the competency to develop and implement a peer counseling network, there are agencies in the country that specialize in these matters. Peerstar LLC is an agency in Pennsylvania, Texas and Indiana that facilitates this peer network methodology, with the capability of being present in the jail and prison system five days per week, handling a caseload of up to 20 inmates at a time. Peerstar works in partnership with the Yale University School of Medicine to develop competent and trustworthy peer counseling methodologies that have proven effectiveness rates. Jails and prisons can turn toward peer counseling at a much lower price than traditional mental health care (i.e. hospitalization and intensive psychiatric methods). With overcrowding a real issue in today’s prisons and jails, this model could be budget-conscious and also target more individuals in legitimate need of counseling and encouragement to manage their mental illness conditions. The benefit of this more cost-conscious strategy is to ensure that the 83 to 89 percent of mentally ill inmates receive adequate attention and treatment as mandated by the Supreme Court’s landmark decisions. The field of criminal justice recognizes social learning theory, which asserts that reference groups influence the behaviors of others. Under social learning theory, when a reference figure maintains characteristics which are aspirational or desirable, others are likely to emulate their own behaviors against this social model. This theory is supplemented with operant conditioning, whereby one molds their behaviors based on the level of positive or negative reinforcement (reward versus chastisement) that is received for conducting this behavior (Bandura, 1977). Social learning theory and operant conditioning often underpin an understanding of why individuals seek membership in gangs and resort to criminal activity occurring in a group setting. Gang activity promotes a larger-than-life concept for leadership and criminal behaviors are often rewarded with increased encouragement and camaraderie. Antisocial disorder is only one type of mental illness that is often adopted by individuals who are lured toward gang membership under social learning theory. Hence, building a peer support network in America’s prisons and jails maintains many positive theoretical outcomes. First, it is less burdensome from an economic perspective. Secondly, aspirational figures in peer support networks can facilitate improved social learning in an effort to gain encouragement from the aspirational reference figures and mould their own pro-social behaviors against this inspiring reference group. It is a goal of criminal justice systems to provide fairness and equity to all members of society, even those who have engaged in criminal behavior. This ideology underpins the appropriateness of developing lower-cost peer support networks in jails and prisons. Inmates hail from diverse upbringings, including socio-economic, religious, and ethnic. Peer networks consisting of diverse individuals would set the tone for an inclusive environment where all members are treated equitably and with the same level of attention and encouragement needed to manage their mental conditions. Criminal behavior is invariably linked with social inequality (Fajnzylber, Lederman and Loayza, 2001). Therefore, the establishment of a peer mental health services network has another advantage: accustoming individuals who hail backgrounds of racism and poverty (as well as other challenges) to find social acceptance and belonging. These are fundamental motivations in most human beings that must be addressed in order to develop self-esteem and reach the fullest pinnacle of their personal achievements. Hence, such a network that promotes inclusion as a cultural variable within the jail and prison system could have long-term benefits on the ability of an inmate to adjust to the external social environment having experienced a group environment where all members are treated similarly and experience social equality. If such groups were facilitated by jail staff, it may even promote more empathetic behaviors of inmate custodians which would have far-reaching, positive consequences on providing appropriate mental health support for the deeply afflicted. With the ultimate objective of the criminal justice system being the encouragement of social equity, the peer mental health network solution is ideal as some mentally ill inmates have likely never experienced social equity and social inclusion. The potential positive implications for success upon re-entry are substantial. Research also indicates that many individuals having trouble coping with society turn toward religious organizations for encouragement and support (Shafer, 2004). Hence, some dimension of religiosity can be incorporated into these peer support networks to facilitate even more faith and encouragement to assist in recovering from the challenges of mental illness. Fundamental, positive concepts stemming from diverse religious backgrounds that represent all inmate population can be published and distributed as a means of promoting further encouragement during periods where the peer networks are not meeting. Allowing group members to share their religious devotions and experiences might facilitate using religious faith concepts to foster more motivation and conviction that such a program would be beneficial in the long-term. Koenig (1998) asserts that having religious conviction is directly related to improved mental health. However, the volume of religiosity utilized in these proposed group sessions should be regulated, as there has been research-supported links to the development of obsessive-compulsive disorder for those with powerful religious convictions (Abramowitz, et al., 2004). In an environment where individuals are facing long-term incarceration, it is not illogical to assume that some inmates involved in religiously-toned mental health networks might clutch spirituality with tremendous fervor. With the potential theoretical risk of extreme religiosity underpinning the potential development of other mental disorders, it would be a practical assertion for program facilitators to limit and control the volume of religious discussion and reflection. The Impact of Centralized Criminal Justice Agencies New efforts at centralization of criminal justice systems does not necessarily complicate the proposed solutions, such as Homeland Security and the Patriot Act. However, this centralization of policing systems, surveillance systems, and better controlling national security have given organizations improved cooperative talents and experience working in a collaborative criminal justice system. America’s jails and prisons are now partners with other agencies, such as local police forces, Homeland Security, and even clinical networks. These collaborations under new cooperative models can be witnessed in risk mitigation strategies, such as identifying a response plan in the event of a biological attack. This has transformed the criminal justice system into a team-based model whereby relevant experts have had over a decade of experience working collaboratively with diverse professionals in many different fields. The relevant outcomes of experiential learning in team structures, as a result of improved centralization of criminal justice systems, have tremendous implications for ensuring that mental health treatment is effective. Jail and prison staff now have experience in collecting data and transforming this into analyzable metrics and reporting various data to different agencies and professionals. This new emphasis on quantitative measurement as part of a new collaborative model provides opportunities to ensure that treatment is progressing as expected for inmates. These were competencies not present in jail and prison systems prior to the development of centralized criminal justice legislation. In today’s team-based models of corrections, fostering positive socio-professional relationships with relevant psychiatrists and psychologists (and other relevant stakeholders) is a normative set of values in the organizational model. Identifying Criminal Justice Careers to Facilitate the Solutions A new career position that provides training and education to facilitate peer mental health services would be highly valuable in the jail and prison models. The job role, titled as Peer Network Facilitator, would receive academic teachings in foundational psychology as well as team development and conflict resolution. This position, under the proposed solution, would be responsible for coordinating group sessions, mediating conflict within the group, and determining a relevant scheduling of peer mental health support sessions to ensure that all inmates in need of these services are addressed. This professional would report directly to relevant psychiatrists and psychologists to discuss outcomes and strategies, being a data administrator within the prison and jail system itself. A second career position would be instrumental in ensuring that jails and prisons receive new economic appropriations. This job role, titled the Prison System Funding Executive, would be at the higher, executive-level in criminal justice who is responsible for coordinating lobbying resources from inter-dependent agencies and those organizations with a vested interest in positive social outcomes as a result of prison rehabilitation programs. Such an executive position would begin collecting metrics and data on prison recidivism problems, mental health statistics for inmate populations, and coordinate the creation of an in-depth study and plan for improving America’s jail and prison systems in terms of mental health treatment and support. This temporary position as funding executive would be instrumental in gaining support to pressure Congressional leaders to re-allocate a small portion of military-related spending to transform the mental health treatment systems and capabilities of jails and prisons throughout the United States. Conclusion America’s prisons and jails, today, are equipped with organizational structure and talent experience that is supportive of facilitating the solution to the problem of treating inmate mental illnesses. Funding increases, stemming from the federal government, could easily facilitate the development of practical and efficient peer mental health treatment programs that would have significant benefit for the high volume of inmates needing special mental health assistance. This funding could ensure that there are more relevant professionals recruited within the jail and prison system that is required to facilitate such a group and also diagnose the specific types of mental illnesses that are plaguing well over a million inmates across the country. Some of the barriers to providing treatment which were identified in the research process, such as behavioral problems or bizarre conduct will still plague professionals in the prison system and the proposed lobbying focus and peer mental health networking solutions cannot alleviate this issue. However, with improved funding comes more opportunities to increase manpower in the jail and prison system for institutions that are facing higher instances of problem behaviors. This solution, also, does not address the issue of privacy, however with increased federal funding allocated through intensive lobbying efforts comes opportunities at the individual jail and prison level to establish private treatment units for those who are strongly opposed to discussing mental health issues in a group context. It is unreasonable to assume that all inmates will appreciate and adhere to group discussion expectations and there should be some contingency, provided by re-allocation of military funding, to ensure privacy for those with this need. The proposed solutions of lobbying for increased funding and peer support networks is viable, realistic and measurable in terms of ensuring quality outcomes of the program. Lobbying for re-allocation of military-related spending to improve mental health treatment in prison and jails can be coordinated and is an activity that has given many lobbyists tremendous return on investment. To ensure equity and fairness in the criminal justice system, these two strategies should be considered and developed immediately. Without increased funding and a more practical solution to help the 83 to 89 percent of mentally ill inmates, inmate mental health treatment will continue to be a serious social problem with long-term implications for public security. References Abramowitz, Jonathan S., Deacon, Brett J., Woods, Carol M. & Tolin, David F. (2004). Association between Protestant Religiosity and Obsessive-Compulsive Symptoms and Cognitions, Depression and Anxiety, 20, pp.70-76. Acquaviva, Gregory L. (2005). Mental Health Courts: No Longer Experimental, Seton Hall Law Review, 36, pp.971-1013. Alexander, Raquel M., Mazza, Stephen W. & Scholz, Susan. (2009). Measuring Rates of Return for Lobbying Expenditures: An Empirical Case Study of Tax Breaks for Multinational Corporations. Journal of Law and Politics, 25(401). Ashford, Jose B., Sales, Bruce D. & Reid, William H. (2000). Treating Adult and Juvenile Offenders with Special Needs. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. London: Prentice Hall. Bernabe, Nick. (2015). Corporations Lobbying Government Reap 76,000% Return on Investment, Mint Press News. Retrieved April 19, 2015 from http://www.mintpressnews.com/corporations-lobbying-government-reap-76000-return- on-investment/203447/ Davidson, Larry. (2012). Peer Support among Persons with Severe Mental Illness: A Review of Evidence and Experience. World Psychiatry, 11(2). Fajnzylber, Pablo, Lederman, Daniel & Loayza, Norman. (2001). Inequality and Violent Crime. Journal of Law and Economics, 45(1), pp.1-40. Fellner, Jamie. (2006). A Corrections Quandry: Mental Illness and Prison Rules. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 41, pp.391-412. Hiroeh, Urara, Appleby, Louis, Mortensen, Preben B. & Dunn, Graham. (2001). Death by Homicide, Suicide and other Unnatural causes in People with Mental Illness: A Population-Based Study, The Lancet, 358(9299), pp.2110-2112. James, Doris J. & Glaze, Lauren E. (2006). Mental Health Problems of Prison and Jail Inmates. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report NCJ213600, Washington D.C. Retrieved April 20, 2015 from http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=789 James, Nathan. (2014). The Bureau of Prisons (BOP): Operations and Budget, Congressional Research Service. Retrieved April 21, 2015 from http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42486.pdf Koenig, Harold G. (1998). Handbook of Religion and Mental Health. San Diego: Academic Press. McVey, Catherine C. (2001). Coordinating Effective Health and Mental Health Continuity of Care, Corrections Today, 63(5), pp.58-62. Metzner, Jeffrey L. (1993). Guidelines for Psychiatric Services in Prisons, Criminal Behavior and Mental Health, 3(4), pp.252-267. National Priorities Project. (2015). Federal Spending: Where does the Money go? Retrieved April 22, 2015 from https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget- 101/spending/ Peterson, Peter G. (2015). The US Spends more on Defense than the Next Seven Countries Combined. Retrieved April 21, 2015 from http://pgpf.org/Chart-Archive/0053_defense- comparison Porter, Roy. (2006). Madmen: A Social History of Madhouses, Mad Doctors and Lunatics. Stroud: Tempus Publishers. Powell, Thomas A., Holt, John C. and Fondacaro, Karen M. (1997). The Prevalence of Mental Illness among Inmates in a Rural State. Law and Human Behavior, 21(4), pp.427-438. Shafer, Grant. (2004). Hell, Martyrdom and War: Violence in Early Christianity and the Destructive Power of Religion – Violence in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Westport: Praegers. Solomon, Phyllis. (2004). Peer Support/Peer Provided Services Underlying Processes, Benefits and Critical Ingredients. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 27(4). Torrey, E Fuller, Zdanowicz, Mary T., Kennard, Aaron D., et al. (2014). The Treatment of Persons with Mental Illness in Prisons and Jails: A State Survey, The Treatment Advocacy Center. Retrieved April 20, 2015 from http://tacreports.org/storage/documents/treatment-behind-bars/treatment-behind-bars.pdf USDOJ. (2007). Sheriff’s Guide to Effective Jail Operations, United States Department of Justice. Retrieved April 21, 2015 from http://static.nicic.gov/Library/021925.pdf Whitehead, John T., Jones, Mark & Braswell, Michael C. (2003). Exploring Corrections in America (2nd ed.). Newark: Matthew Bender & Company. Read More