The Increase in the Frequency of Involvement of Ex-Mental Patients in the Criminal Justice System - Case Study Example

The Effect of Deinstitutionalization on the Increase in the Frequency of Involvement of Ex-Mental Patients in the Criminal Justice System Abstract Subsequent to the deinstitutionalization movement and the discharge of masses of individuals with acute mental disorder into communities in the recent decades, police forces gradually encountered offenders with mental illness. This has had significant implications for the criminal justice system, and various researchers have investigated the effect of deinstitutionalization on crime rates and prison populations. There were also researchers who have demonstrated that mentally ill individuals are more susceptible to aggression and crime than offenders who are not mentally ill. The objective of this study is to determine the effect of deinstitutionalization on the frequency of involvement of ex-mental patients in the criminal justice system through an analysis or review of available data and information on private and public mental hospital capacities, and crime rates in purposively selected U.S. inner-cities. Review of Related Literature In the advent of deinstitutionalization, several former mental patients have turned out to be considerably involved with the criminal justice system, which is an area they are especially unprepared to deal with. Researchers and observers alike, depending on their specific concern in the issue, have thus far predisposed to examine this outcome of the process of deinstitutionalization in one of two ways (LaFond & Durham, 1992). First, the mainstream media have took hold of particular offenses involving the abrupt and dramatic murder of unsuspecting victims by sadistic murderers, whom they readily recognized as ‘escaped lunatics’ or ‘psychos on a rampage’ (LaFond & Durham, 1992, 33); labels that intricately connects the suspected murderer to mental disorder. Second, mental health practitioners have been swift to reveal what they see as the prejudice and pointless imprisonment of mentally ill people for minor offenses, which the experts typify as the unnecessary interference of the criminal justice system into the area of mental health (ibid). Both interpretations of reality have a general central point of view that deinstitutionalization is at the core of the predicament; furthermore, both perspectives sensibly give rise to a claim for rehospitalization of people with mental disorder, either for the reason that they are incapable of living in civilized society or quite weak to survive a narrow-minded intolerance and mistreatment of society (LaFond & Durham, 1992). The root is identical, the solution is identical, and the only thing that has been inadequate is empirical research of what we all believe to be obvious: ‘that deinstitutionalized mental patients either are criminals or are treated like criminals’ (Bean, 2003, 141). Practically everyone does appear to have the same opinion, that the mechanism of integrating mental patients by reinstating their civil rights has to a certain extent gone too far: ‘in seeking to free captive mental patients, liberal zealots have managed to enslave the rest of us in a world of danger and overcrowded prisons’ (Johnson, 1990, 159). Obviously, deinstitutionalization is assumed to be directly accountable for this societal problem. Deinstitutionalization has denied people of a useful apparatus for sorting out delinquents and deviants. Traditionally, mentally ill individuals were hospitalized, while offenders were incarcerated. Likewise, individuals passing by a mental hospital could be quite certain it housed the mentally ill; if they happened to visit a prison, they could openly assume offenders were inside. Currently, however, it is significantly less apparent who is mentally ill and who is wicked, which is making the members of the mainstream population more than a little worried (Abramsky, 2003). The problem with determining the nature and degree of mental disorder among the criminal population is that nowhere, apart from presumably in authoritarian societies, it is somewhat obvious how comparative and even biased psychiatric analysis can be. Apparently, several suspected offenders gain from depicting themselves as extremely mentally ill to stand trial, and excuses such as the insanity defense provide exactly the form of opportunity and challenge for misuse that sociopaths greatly gain pleasure from. Even though quite frequent behind bars, deviants are only ‘insane’ for the period of their stay in prison and definitely should not be included among real sociopaths (Abramsky, 2003). Strangely enough, particular types of patients who are severely unstable do quite well in prison, which in any case is a significantly structured environment, functional to the disordered specifically for the order it forces on their disorganized way of thinking; as these people function in the environment, they are not likely to be hospitalized or even, at times, brought to the in-house clinic and hence do not get reckoned among those who have mental illness (Abramsky, 2003). Predominantly, individuals recognized as mentally ill by penitentiary employees are, unsurprisingly, those who give them too much trouble or problem. This may or may not indicate they have a mental illness, because even the most sluggish sociopath can identify a capably helpful setting in appearing to be psychologically inept to penitentiary personnel. Moreover, correctional facilities are supervised wholly by correctional staffs, who are the caretakers to their on-site service: ‘no clinical service personnel, however well-designed their services, can ever get around the fact that they see those inmates sent by corrections personnel’ (Johnson, 1990, 167). An illustration of this observable fact seems, paradoxically, in one of the few investigations of the mentally ill prisoner carried out by criminologists and not by mental health practitioners, a study of 339 prisoners in New Jersey. The researcher described mental illness as “having been hospitalized psychiatrically sometime in the past, and she identified 10.9 percent of the population studied as falling into that category (she suspected that many more inmates were mentally ill than her own research showed)” (Johnson, 1990, 168). It appeared that corrections staffs, mentioning security difficulties, had denied the researchers of contact to those prisoners under special custody specifically because the penitentiary believed those prisoners as extremely insane and hence too disturbed to be securely allowed into an interview room to be examined. This story obviously demonstrates how significant it is, especially so in including the mentally ill in prison, to identify who has labeled research participants, in accordance to what standards. In short, a high crime rate can be attributed to, or in any case be clarified by, the existence in the community of undesirable mentally ill individuals, if we can only establish permanently that they are the people committing offenses. In fact, argues Steadman, it is certain that the individuals in mental hospitals at nowadays directly bear a resemblance to the individuals who have constantly committed a good number of offenses, particularly, uneducated, unemployed, unmarried Hispanic and black males with poorly restricted aggressive inclinations (Johnson, 1990). For all the time and effort that has been invested in research to prove how probable individuals with mental illness are to commit felonies, the findings have not explained much on the issue of whether in effect the mentally ill have resorted to prisons now that they cannot be hospitalized. There is in fact a remarkably good explanation for this (Johnson, 1990, 172): … it is impossible for clinically oriented researchers to do an accurate study of inmates. Inmates of correctional institutions are very different from mental patients, and they cannot be studied in the same way by the same people using the same techniques and research designs. For one thing, inmates cannot be counted on not to lie, especially if they think telling a researcher what they decide he or she wants to hear will in some way help them with their case or get them out of jail altogether—in fact, inmates should be counted on to be lying a lot of the time. Numerous prisoners are sociopaths, nevertheless, who are exceptionally capable at detecting or determining what it is other people want to know; this is the way several of them subsist when they are out of prison. For another, nearly all prisoners would no more work with a stranger, such as a researcher, than they would yell on a pal. This does not essentially imply they would refuse to have a conversation with him, even though they may not, but instead that they may make it a point simply to look like they are cooperating: numerous prisoners would find it difficult to sham conformity to a research etiquette, appearing to satisfy the expectations of the researcher while in fact deceiving him, the intention being plainly to mislead a trusting victim (Rivera, 2004). Against the context of biased analysis and highly problematic control over the common factors of access to and classification of participants, researchers have made an effort at identifying to what measure mental patients in America are also violent criminals. They have performed this since 1922, when a researcher studied the detainment records of released mental patients (Johnson, 1990). Although twelve investigations of the same trend have been carried out since 1922, it is arresting that precisely as many determined investigations claiming to include the destitute mentally ill were accomplished in just between 1978 and 1984: ‘for whatever reasons, determining the number of mentally ill among the offender population has not been anywhere near as interesting a research project as it might have been’ (Johnson, 1990, 168). Consequently, a great portion of our present problem and one almost all current researchers of the mentally ill criminal feel sorry for, is that there are no criterion historical data that can be used to weigh against present findings; specifically, we cannot prove if there are more incarcerated individuals with mental illness nowadays than there were prior to deinstitutionalization. Given the standing situation, it is improbable to know certainly, in a statistical sense. This puts us at the interpretation of such hypotheses as the epidemiological rule of thumb in Europe that claims there is an opposite correlation between the population in mental hospitals and the population of convicted inmates (Laing, 1999). To a certain extent, it would be a success of the force of deinstitutionalization if there were a sizable number of former mental patients in prisons, since it would demonstrate that they were being viewed and treated like ordinary people who are responsible for their own behaviors and actions. It could well be that individuals with mental illness commit felonies more than average people do, but psychological disorder should not be exploited as a defense, a way to flee from accountability for one’s behaviors, an excuse likely to be accepted. It is just for offenders with mental illness to be incarcerated, and for a number of them it could be the most favorable place to be. The assumption of this study is that deinstitutionalization has a significant effect on the increase in the frequency of involvement of ex-mental patients in the criminal justice system. Although, I must emphasize here that even though a number of researchers have attempted to discover a way to reckon individuals with mental illness in prison, the available literature on the issue remains insufficient. Nonetheless, the research question concerning the effect of deinstitutionalization on the increase in the frequency of involvement of ex-mental patients in the criminal justice system raises significant concerns regarding the suitable level of analysis. This dearth in empirical evidence about the aforementioned research problem encouraged the researcher to conduct a study that will contribute to existing knowledge about causes and effects of the involvement of the mentally challenged in the criminal justice system. Methodology A pattern of relationship surfaces between deinstitutionalization and crime rates in a number of studies. However, empirical evidence available remains insufficient to establish the direct effect of deinstitutionalization on the involvement of the mentally ill in the criminal justice system. This study will carry out two sets of methodology, namely, secondary data analysis and time comparison, in order to test the validity of the hypothesis. The researcher will look for an inner-city in the United States that has complete and inclusive records of crime incidences before and after deinstitutionalization. Basically deinstitutionalization or the transfer of the mentally ill out of state public hospitals began in 1955. The study will use hence try to recover record of crime incidence before deinstitutionalization (1945-1955) and after deinstitutionalization (1955-1965). In order to statistically verify the validity of the hypothesis that deinstitutionalization has a significant effect on the involvement of the mentally ill in the criminal justice system will be performed. Bivariate correlation analysis will be used in order to assess the strength of the relationship between deinstitutionalization and crime rate, specifically, if the discharge of the mentally ill is significantly correlated to the increase in crime rate. The number of mentally ill discharged in a given period will be compared with the crime rate of the same period. Discussion and Conclusions If the hypothesis is confirmed then the local and national government should rethink the further implications of deinstitutionalization to the criminal justice system. It could be that deinstitutionalization has contributed to the uncertainty about where the rebelliously deviant should best be placed. Former mental patients should then be received in the community as long as they behave normally. There would be then a great challenge to the academic community to prove that deinstitutionalization has a negative effect on the criminal justice system. On the other hand, it will not necessary imply that deinstitutionalization has no effect on crime incidences if the hypothesis is invalid. There are apparently rooms for variances that would render the hypothesis invalid. The research design could be inappropriate. References Abramsky, S. (2003). Ill-Equipped: U.S. Prisons and Offenders with Mental Illness. New York: Human Rights Watch. Bean, P. (2003). Crime (Critical Concepts in Sociology). London: Routledge. Johnson, A. B. (1990). Out of Bedlam: The Truth About Deinstitutionalization. New York: Basic Books. LaFond, J. & Durham, M.L. (1992). Back to the Asylum: The Future of Mental Health Law and Policy in the United States (Paperback). New York: Oxford University Press Inc. Laing, J. M. (1999). Care or Custody? Mentally Disordered Offenders in the Criminal Justice System. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rivera, R. M. (2004). The Mentally Ill Offender: A Brighter Tomorrow through the Eyes of the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act of 2004. Journal of Law and Health , 107+. Read More