Mental Illness and the Criminal Justice System - Essay Example

Mental Illness and the Criminal Justice System Epidemiology The Correctional Investigator presented their Annual Report registering 38% of all federal offenders required psychological or psychiatric follow-up identified during the admission. Further, 69% of female and 45% of male inmates attended mental health care services within the institution. The element of over-representation among the people having mental illness rendered corrections system incapacitated due to the increase of scope of application. From 1997 to 2010, the serious symptoms of mental illness, as reported among federal offenders during admission, rose by 73% for females and 63% for males. The focus of the people having such mental illness ended up within the criminal justice systems is broad. The common societal factors and triggers include inadequate housing, trauma and poverty which increase the levels of risk coupled with substance use problems. The outcomes include the development of instances where mental illnesses have an actual causal implication of people behaving in a manner that leads to criminal justice responses. In all reasons, overrepresentation among people having mental illness across a criminal justice system was referred to as “mental illness criminalization” (Ritter & Lampkin, 2011). The mental illness criminalization links to different several factors which are most notably due to inadequate access to appropriate supports and treatment. Exemption of access to services and supports means that people are having mental illness commit crimes and behave in a manner that draws the attention of the police. The response of police to such interactions within the early prediction of the likelihood of further involvement in criminal justice systems is beneficial (Scott, 2009). While people having mental illness face incarceration, they experience severe symptoms from the illness and become isolated within the community services and supports. The concept makes it more difficult to evaluate the services through their immediate release. The diversion involves increased homelessness risks through discharge processed. The individuals are reliant on mental health services within the correction systems which are mostly inadequate. The involvement of criminal justice systems increases the discrimination and stigma in which people are suffering from mental illness experience (Phillips, 2008). The criminalization imperative among the people living with mental illness can be addressed through allowing them receive such support. Both treatment and care are necessary for establishing the entitlement. Addressing and reducing the element of criminalization among people living with mental illness makes it helpful to utilize social justice approaches in public policy. The statistics show the relevance of focusing on the preventative involvement of criminal justice system. The diversion opportunities are availed through increased access and provision of treatment and rehabilitation services to meet the diverse needs of people. Etiology There are studies that connect mental illness to violence. Various punitive approaches addressed to mentally ill patients are propelled by the high probability of committing a crime. Such fear is fueled through recent widely-reported and sensationally violent attacks including shooting of guards within U.S. Capital. The integral relationship between criminal behavior and mental illness undergoes an extensive evaluation. Previous studies can be embraced through institutionalized populations without authorities looking into the individuals discharged from hospitals. The figure is compared to general populations. The review continues to develop meaning on statistically significant variations between violence and mental illness (Scott, 2009). On the other hand, the scope of mental disorders and violent behavior does not base application on the diagnosis of their mental illness coupled with current psychotic symptoms. The eventualities of mitigation are based on appropriate treatment and medication. Violent behavior has a high likelihood of occurring while people loaded with mental illness face co-occurrences with substance abuse problems. Drug and alcohol abuse raise the possibility of violence throughout non-mentally illnesses within reduces concepts. However, contribution of absolute mental illness allows for general violence levels within United States and is considered a minute measure. A substantive estimate includes serious mental illness patients committing up to 4% of all U.S homicides. Historic and in recent research and perspectives The procedural justice theory stipulates that individuals share the concerns of respectful treatment and fair procedures through legal authorities that are based on outcomes from the criminal justice system interactions. Literature suggests that the procedural fairness judgments by an individual shape the legitimacy perceptions and satisfaction from legal authorities. The interaction influences the compliance based on law as well as decisions developed by persons in authority (Stojkovic, Kalinich & Klofas, 2014). Procedural effects have an apparent independence of outcomes that are provided. Therefore, individuals with the perception of being treated fairly from the system illustrate better procedural outcomes such as compliance with legal mandates. The persons do not mind the outcome of the case such as duration of their sentences. The deterrence theory expresses that the experience or threat of punishments from different infractions reduces the possibility that such infractions are repeated. This means that threatened or actual sanctions act as deterrence tools (Ritter & Lampkin, 2011). General concept of deterrence appreciates the increment of probability within various infractions and punishment as well as a reduction of misbehavior. Specific forms of deterrence posit that individuals’ punishment experiences affect their future undertakings and behavior. The deterrence facets focus on differential goals of increasing expectations the infractions through punishment. The expectations are changed through direct punishment to the individual or making visible the punishments for others. The other approach is increasing beliefs among individuals that punishment can uphold certain infraction. The aspects of punishment are perceived through severity, celerity, and certainty for possible sanctions that are hypothesized as influential decision-making tools for the offenders. The variation correlates to the offenses in place. The overall theory has a typical respect for the involvement of linkages such as the perceptual link of potential offenders forming perceptions on risks to commit crimes based on their information. The alternative is sanctioning policy as well as other experiences. The behavioral link involves potential offenders’ perceptions to sanction risk as an influence of behavior. Drug courts use graduated sanctions that are incrementally stringent responses in developing infractions. The mechanisms also deter the future of community offending. There are distinct studies regarding the deterrence effectiveness to client outcomes (Reid, 2011). Strategy One of the ways of addressing the gap is providing specialized cross-training to probation and parole officers. The training should cover the characteristics from serious mental illnesses such as effects that illnesses impact within daily functioning (Reid, 2011). Other aspects to consider include the desired outcomes and goals of the treatment. Advanced training includes crisis screening, intervention, counseling, community follow-up and discharge planning among other management services. The other approach involves understanding the necessities of mental health law and confidentiality statutes. The officers can be empowered to identify mental health among other services availed within the immediate area. The officers can inform affected persons on ways of access them together with achieving government-funded benefits targeting the individuals. It is important to screen individuals for medical, social, criminal and clinical justice factors which place client at the risk of failing their reintegration within the community. The focus also includes crisis intervention, discharge planning, counseling, screening, and community with follow-up case management services (Phillips, 2008). Lastly, most nations are allowing for continuous monitoring and increased communication among community supervision teams and subsequent provider agencies. The strategy promotes greater client responsibility as well as more flexible sanctions which allow the correction of mistakes without immediate jail or prison return. Most state criminal codes permit or authorize judges in diverting non-violent offenders suffering from mental illness against incarceration of appropriate treatment. The focus also includes authority for courts in deferring entries of judgment (Scott, 2009). The illustration addresses the treatment programs pending completion and dismissing the absolute charges. The allowance also expunges the records of individuals with successful completion of treatment programs. Program Addressing This Issue Maryland Community Criminal Justice Treatment Program in Wicomico County, Maryland requires that case managers work with diversion candidates in developing treatment plans. The process includes discussions with the public defender, Assistant State’s Attorney, and a judge attached to the criminal case. As parties settle on the appropriate diversion, judges place such cases within stet dockets where a period of one year is open to judicial review. Defendants are later released into a community for purposes of completing their treatment programs. In the end, jail diversion and community re-entry are considered to be the integral objective for people suffering from mental illnesses and their arrests amount to symptoms of diverse illnesses (Ritter & Lampkin, 2011). Individuals facing mental illnesses are arrested for minimal and non-violent crimes that are diverted from prison to community-based programs of mental health in possible areas. People, who receive appropriate treatment within the community, have a general illustration of better long-term prognosis coupled with the least possible return to jail due to similar offenses. The mentally ill individuals can be arrested within jail systems to provide for specific needs starting with processes for initial screening, referral and classification. Policies and programs recommended by federal governments demonstrate more constructive options presented to respond to challenges induced by mental illness. In turn, the elements should provide intensive services within the communities for purposes of aiding mentally ill individuals and leading functional lives (Reid, 2011). Another achievement is that there are reduced incidences of variant criminal behavior. The policymakers and practitioners in a criminal justice system develop alternate means of collaboratively working with subsequent community institutions for purposes of appropriately assessing, diagnosing, and responding to mentally ill offenders’ involvement in crime. The framework also helps communities in developing systemic responses that promote public safety through the reduction of inappropriate confinement of persons due to mental illness. Conclusion In my opinion, while criminal justice, correctional and law enforcement officials identify the essence of working in close relationship with mental health, social service, and substance abuse practitioners focus on address special needs among the people. The goal is to involve mental illnesses and related disorders using necessary resources that are previously unavailable. In the end, more people suffering from substance abuse disorders and mental illnesses have repeated cycles of jail and prison terms. The variation provides minimal benefit to individuals as well as the community. The main problem is identified within the splintered scope of the mental treatment and health options provided. The psychiatric programs take the design of treating the developmentally disabled or the mentally ill. Other programs focus on people having chemical dependency. Ascertained substance abuse programs are not ready to accept individuals with mental illness. In the end, most people have multiple conditions constituting larger percentages of mentally ill persons in a criminal justice system. Such aspects have a precise relationship with groups that encounter difficulties in obtaining necessary treatment within their community. The procedures present particular problems among the police who are solicited towards incidents that involve people sharing more problems as faced with alternative courses from arrests. For instance, mental health institutions decline to offer treatment to alcoholics while drug treatment programs term mentally ill as disruptive. Such reasons are presented for refusal of entry while emergency rooms often have an unwillingness of treating mentally ill people who have more intoxication and threatening conditions. The result is that such people end up in the local jail by default. The challenge facing efforts of building effective systems of community-based service include overcoming agency and political inertia. Previous reports outline the essence of system integration within communities for purposes of linking mental health, criminal justice systems and substance abuse. Professionals acknowledge that system integration offers powerful mechanisms within communities for improving service delivery and treating people and their problems. The system integration concept benefits all stakeholders. In addition, the integration to work allows for extensive ways of engaging in things that are challenging through offering alternative options. Integrated services provide treatment through sustainable housing and case management to serve the community’s interests. The solutions include reduced homelessness and elimination of public disturbances together with appropriate detention sentences and number of detainees. References American Bar Association. Commission on Effective Criminal Sanctions. (2007). Second Chances in the Criminal Justice System: Alternatives to Incarceration and Reentry Strategies. New York: American Bar Association. Phillips, D. W. (2008). Mental Health Issues in the Criminal Justice System. New York: Haworth Press. Reid, S. T. (2011). Criminal Justice Essentials. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Ritter, L., Lampkin, S. (2011). Community Mental Health. New York: Jones & Bartlett Learning, Scott, C. L. (2009). Handbook of Correctional Mental Health, Second Edition. New York: American Psychiatric Pub. Stojkovic, S., Kalinich, D., & Klofas, J. (2014). Criminal Justice Organizations: Administration and Management. New York: Cengage Learning. Read More