Limiting the Psychological Pathogens of Criminal Justice - Research Paper Example

Limiting the Psychological Pathogens of Criminal Justice Executive Summary A U.S. Government grant has been given to Illinois under the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act. The Governor has selected a Coordinating Council to distribute the money to a number of home organizations to find scientifically developed programs geared toward decreasing the participation of mentally ill people in the judicial system. The Council has asked for proposals from various organizations. It will regard them from both local government and non-government organizations including but not limited to the following: human services departments, police agencies, probation offices, the courts, correctional institutions, community-based organizations and multi-agency coalitions. Here, we develop a proposal on behalf of a community mental health support group. This proposal is developed using empirical evidence from previous methods. Issues of public safety and ethics are paramount. As such, we analyze the process of law enforcement as applied to the mentally ill, and in so doing, we delineate strengths and weaknesses of traditional methods of dealing with these problems. Our population of interest is those who have not responded well to conventional clinical-legal methods. These are the people who have been traditionally called lost causes or incorrigibles. Our proposal builds upon previously successful models as a consolidated inter-disciplinary method. Briefly, our proposal is one of laissez faire. Forced participation in mental health and substance abuse programs are most often not appropriate especially for people who have the ability to independently improve their own lives (Chandler et. al., 2004). Ultimately, it is a profoundly human endeavor to help others live down their own shortcomings. This is a certainty upon which any method should operate. Although their presence is becoming much more significant, offenders with mental illnesses are still some of the most disenfranchised groups in society. Here, we propose improved methods of dealing with this population in a criminal justice setting. As such, we present the background and rationale for our proposal as well as its details and predicted outcomes. Background As we explore relevant information with respect to mental health and criminal justice, we are faced with certain questions. Do we include alcohol and drug abuse as a mental illness? How much is the system itself responsible for aggravating mental illnesses in the population? Does punishment (particularly confinement and isolation) make matters worse or maybe even create a lasting state of profound mental infirmity? It is simply the burden of leadership that the system should consider the role it plays in making society worse. Its current methods of dealing with the mentally ill are wrought with intense problems (Arrigo & Williams, 1999). At least part of the reason is that it assumes conventional methods of dealing with this marginalized group on a level of social control are sufficient for every case, but not everyone is alike. Our group of hopefuls is generally not gang affiliated, has used opportunities in correctional settings to gain job training and education, has worked at least some time in their lives, and is not already caught in the cycle of malingering to gain government benefits. Expert system software may be implemented to delineate those who fall into this group (Monahan et. al. 2005). Nevertheless, each case is unique, and it is ultimately a human decision that determines how an offender is treated. To better address the social problems related to this group, stakeholders must accept that superficial cause and effect relationships are not necessarily sufficient to deal with their particular challenges. The complexity of human society is such that underlying nuances manifest themselves in unpredictable ways when artificial intervention is applied under the assumption of linear relationships in a system that is profoundly nonlinear (Arrigo and Williams, 1999). The bottom line is that we should not assume we have it all figured out, because if we continue on a path that cripples people who otherwise would be well-capable of dealing with their own problems, we could end up in a situation where there is an overwhelming number of people who require services and just not enough resources to meet their needs. The system is already overloaded to the point of providing only sparse care to those most afflicted (Lurigio & Swartz, 2000). Rationale An old adage implies that one person can feed another for one day, but if that same person teaches another to feed his or her own self, he or she has helped feed the other person for an entire lifetime. This rationale seems quite simple, but pragmatically, a recipient of such assistance must be able to internalize the communicated skills in order for it to work. Some offenders, whatever their psychological differences, are better off within a limited clinical support setting and society is better off redirecting resources to more acute cases. It is reality that not every person is the same, and whether we like it or not, some are more capable of changing ineffective behavior patterns than others. Furthermore, stress reduction may be the single most central factor in bringing these hopefuls back from the brink of recidivism and violence (Hiday, 1997). The increased representation of the mentally ill in the justice system predicates improved measures for addressing the problems associated with this trend (Ditton, 1999). Some people just do not fit neatly into categories. Although forced treatment may be both necessary and effective for some, it may just be a hindrance to others (Barr, 2003). Although police are coming to see more severe mental illness as a cause of subject dysfunction, they are less likely to divert people with less severe problems to alternative methods of intervention (Watson, Corrigan & Victor, 2004). Coupled with the relative insufficiencies of conventional psychiatric diagnostic criteria, this poses a complex set of problems for people in our sample who are ready to move away from past behaviors and take their rightful places within an open society. Details Our population is those who have been erroneously marginalized from life as prosperous citizens. We recognize a number of trends related to the challenges associated with serving this group. Many people in our demographic regard the interference of the judicial process in personal problems nothing short of coercion (Winick, 2003). Corrections should maintain their course of multiphase service to people with severe mental illness (Appelbaum, Hickey and Packer, 2001). The increased incidence of these people in correctional settings dictates they also scale back services to people who do not really need it. Life planning strategies for them should focus on critical geographic and chronological moments. A key method of assisting the offender is direction to viable resources in the community such as food pantries and job training along with methods helping these people live down a record that may keep them from realizing their true potential as full citizens. The more successful programs feature an appropriate mix of financial, emotional, and social support for each individual and boast greater than 50% reduced recidivism (Kamradt, 2002). Another feature of hopeful models includes initiatives that mitigate the trend of legal problems ranging in participation from police to jails to courts to psychiatry to communities (Munetz and Griffin, 2006). Furthermore, it has been profoundly helpful to divvy up the affected population into groups based on criteria as expressed in the table below: (Prins & Osher, 2008, p. 4). The groups we focus on in our initiative are those with low functional impairment and low criminogenic risk. Assessment criteria carry a wide range of disorders, some much more serious than others (Grisso & Underwood, 2003). A major deviation from conventional approaches in dealing with these people includes the relaxed enforcement of rules with respect to marijuana. Mental health courts have tried to motive people to do better for and by themselves (Lauren & Dodd, 2009). Minor problems in such as limited marijuana use should not be strictly enforced if the overall aims of this initiative are to be met effectively. For example, a probationer who shows autonomy should probably not be sent to jail for occasional marijuana a use. The detriment caused by the incarceration would be unfairly greater than that of the marijuana use itself. It would require her to start at square one to re-establish her life, and stakeholders would have to incur the cost of a fresh case load upon her release. The mitigation of negative consequences for minor infractions is probably the single most effective policy for dealing with our group. Predicted Outcomes Predicting outcomes dictates the necessity of setting standards of what we should call success. We have had to ask ourselves certain questions. How would we know if this program is successful? A broad definition might be that we have successfully assisted the individual in achieving a balance based on physical, mental, and social necessity. Often this means helping the person get to a place of gainful employment or at least a living income. What measures would we need to determine the acquisition of this standard? Part of the measure should include a self-report from the subject. What we would hope from our work is a solid method of having people move from a place of interdependence and co-dependence on a system that is itself in chaos to a place of self-reliance and self-sufficiency especially if they are poised for such behavior. Even a cursory understanding of human motivation and behavior reveals a trend where people who are more satisfied with life are less likely to commit gross criminal acts. Much of what we term criminal thinking and behavior may be traced at least in part to maltreatment of the offender at sometime in their lives (Abrantes, Hoffmann & Anton, 2005). For many, especially those in our group, it is maladaptive behavior in the individual is a result of some post-traumatic stress features of their condition. If we really want to help make society better, we need to help extinguish these near-uncontrollable response patterns by removing the stimuli from the environment. Physiologically, not eliciting anxiety in these individuals is the one of the best ways to reduce the frequency and intensity of deviant behavior. As such, we would expect the criminal justice system as a whole to benefit from implementing these policies. Some of the benefits would include the following: • Improved safety • Consolidation of viable alternatives • Reduction in case loads • Decreased financial burdens (Reuland, Schwarzfeld, & Draper, 2009). Although we seek not Utopia, we do seek improvement in how government and health care operate with respect to the individual. Conclusion Although their presence is becoming profoundly more significant, offenders with mental illnesses are still some of the most disenfranchised groups in society. Here, we proposed improved methods of dealing with this population in a criminal justice setting. As such, we presented the background and rational for our proposal, as well as its details and predicted outcomes. Nevertheless, we will have failed in our ultimate endeavor if we assume that whatever process we implement is the most effective. Our proposal is one of laissez faire. An already overburdened system could only benefit from such a policy. Some people just do not fit neatly into categories, and damages they incur from involvement in the justice system can sometimes aggravate an already bad situation. In this scenario, we cripple the offender with lessons of learned helplessness, and instead of mitigating the impact on society as a whole, we create a permanent burden. Our aim should scaffold the offender into a state of self-reliance such that he or she can become a welcomed addition to the community. As such, we should constantly attempt to improve the way we deal with offenders with mental illness. Our goal is to implement a culture of win-win with respect to all stakeholders in the matter. Our aim is a better future for our society and its citizens as a unified whole. References Appelbaum, K. L., Hickey, J. M., and Packer, I. (2001). The role of correctional officers in multidisciplinary mental health care in prisons. Psychiatric Services, 52 (10). 1343-1347. Arrigo, B. A. and Williams, C. R. (1999). Chaos theory and the social control thesis: a post-Foucauldian analysis of mental illness and involuntary civil confinement. Social Justice, 26. Barr, H. (2003). Transinstitutionalization in the Courts: Brad H. v. City of New York, and the Fight for Discharge Planning for People With Psychiatric Disabilities Leaving Rikers Island. Crime & Delinquency, 49(1). 97-123. Chandler, R. K., Peters, R. K., Field, G., and Juliano-Bult, D. (2004). Challenges in implementing evidence-based treatment practices for co-occurring disorders in the criminal justice system. Behav. Sci. Law, 22. 431–448. Ditton, P. M. (1999). Mental Health and Treatment of Inmates and Probationers. Bureau of Justice Statistics: Special Report. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Grisso, T. and Underwood, L. (2003). Screening and assessing mental health and substance use disorders among youth in the juvenile justice system. National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice Research and Program Brief, January. 1-6. Hiday, V. A. (1997). Understanding the connection between mental illness and violence. International Law and Psychiatry, 20(4). 399-417. Kamradt, B. (2002). Funding mental health services for youth in the juvenile justice system: challenges and opportunities. National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice Research and Program Brief, December. 1-6. Lurigio, A. J. and Swartz, J. A. (2000). Changing the contours of the criminal justice system to meet the needs of persons with serious mental illness. Criminal Justice, 3. 45-109. Monahan, J., Steadman, H. J., Robbins, P.C., Appelbaum, P., Banks, S, Grisso, T., Heilbrun, K., Mulvey, E. P., Roth, L., & Silver, E. (2005). An actuarial model of violence risk assessment for persons with mental disorders. Psychiatric Services, 56 (7). 810-816. Munetz, M. R. and Griffin, P. A. (2006). Use of the sequential intercept model as an approach to decriminalization of people with serious mental illness. Psychiatric Services, 57(4). 544-550. Prins, S. J. and Osher, F. C. (2008). Improving responses to people with mental illnesses: The essential elements of specialized probation initiatives. Council of State Governments Justice Center for the National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons. Watson, A. C., Corrigan, P. W., and Victor, O. (2004). Police officers’ attitudes toward and decisions about persons with mental illness. Psychiatric Services, 55(1). 49-54. Winick, B. J. (2003). Special Series: Problem soling courts and therapeutic jurisprudence: Therapeutic and problem solving courts. Fordham Law Journal, 30: Retrieved June 13, 2006 from http://web.lexis-nexis.com.libproxy.uml.edu. Lauren, A. and Dodd, E. (2009). Mental Health Courts: A guide to research-informed policy and practice. Council of State Governments Justice Center for the National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons. Reuland, M., Schwarzfeld, M. and Draper, L. (2009). Law enforcement responses to people with mental Illnesses: A guide to research-informed policy and practice. Council of State Governments Justice Center for the National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons. Abrantes, A. M., Hoffmann, N. G., and Anton, R. (2005). Prevalence of Co-Occurring Disorders Among Juveniles Committed to Detention Centers. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 49(2). 179-193. Read More