Lesson 10 Assignment- Mental Health Courts
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Strayer University, Virginia Beach *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
MISC
Subject
Law
Date
Nov 24, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
5
Uploaded by uhurumauree
1
Lesson 10 Assignment- Mental Health Courts
Joy Mount
Eastern Gateway Community College
Police Function - CJT213_1000
Jayne Carlini
September 17, 2023
2
Mental Health Courts: Purpose, Function, and Effectiveness
Introduction
The particular requirements of people with mental health difficulties who involve themselves in
the criminal justice system are addressed through mental health courts (MHCs), which are
specialized court programs. In order to improve both qualified offenders' mental health and lower
recidivism, these courts seek to divert them from using regular criminal courts and place them in
support and treatment programs instead. The purpose, function, existence, and effectiveness of
mental health courts are examined in this overview, along with their influence on the
communities they serve.
Purpose and Function
The role of mental health courts (MHCs) in the criminal justice system is diverse. Their key
objective is diversion, which aims to divert those who are struggling with mental disorders away
from regular criminal court processes. This change, of course, recognizes that untreated mental
health problems may be the cause of their contact with the criminal justice system. Rather than
using jail as a last choice, MHCs assist individuals in getting access to specialized therapy and
support programs, addressing the root reasons for their criminal conduct and nurturing their path
to recovery. In the criminal justice system, this strategy places a strong emphasis on the need to
address mental health issues as a crucial part of rehabilitation(Dean, 2017).
The idea of responsibility and oversight is essential to the development of MHCs. A planned
treatment plan must be followed since participants in these programs are always under judicial
supervision. The adherence of participants to their treatment plans is continuously evaluated, and
both rewards and penalties are used as methods to encourage and assure this adherence(Dean,
3
2017). Additionally, MHCs are more effective because of their collaborative character. These
specialty courts encourage a multidisciplinary approach by bringing together a wide range of
stakeholders, including judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, mental health specialists, and
community groups. A more integrated and rehabilitative strategy within the criminal justice
system is supported by this cooperative effort, which plays a key role in making certain that
those involved receive thorough treatment that meets both their legal and mental health
requirements(Goulet et al., 2022).
Effectiveness
It is still up for question whether mental health courts (MHCs) are effective; this opinion is
impacted by a number of variables, including the nature of the programs offered, the available
resources, and the particular populations they are intended to assist. MHC supporters offer a
number of strong justifications for their position. First, evidence points to the possibility that
MHCs can significantly lower participant recidivism rates. These programs provide people with
the skills necessary to prevent reoffending after they complete the program by treating the
underlying mental health conditions that may lead to criminal conduct(Goulet et al., 2022).
Additionally, MHCs can result in significant financial savings for the criminal justice system as
well as society at large. Given the high costs of jail, it is frequently more economical to divert
people from traditional incarceration and place them in therapy or other forms of assistance.
These initiatives also seek to improve participants' symptom management and general quality of
life, which adds to their beneficial effects on mental health(Poteet, 2022).
Nevertheless, MHC detractors cite legitimate issues. A lack of resources can hamper the success
of these programs since many MHCs struggle with low financing, which prevents access to
crucial support and treatment services. In addition, there is a chance of selection bias in MHCs
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
4
since they could favor people with less serious mental diseases or those who fit certain
qualifying requirements. This restriction may limit their ability to assist a wider range of people
who may need mental health help inside the criminal justice system(SKEEM & LOWENKAMP,
2016). Moreover, there may be variations in program efficiency because of the lack of uniformity
across MHCs in various jurisdictions.
It might not be easy to arrive at consistent conclusions
regarding a program's overall impact since different program designs, eligibility requirements,
and resource availability can lead to different outcomes(Goulet et al., 2022).
Conclusion
Finally, it should be noted that there is still disagreement on the efficacy of mental health courts
(MHCs), with both supporters and opponents making respectable arguments. According to
research, participants' mental health has improved, recidivism rates have decreased, and there are
financial benefits for the criminal justice system. However, variables like program design,
resource accessibility, and the particular demographic served can have an impact on how MHCs
ultimately perform. Challenges, including resource scarcity, apparent bias in selection, and a lack
of uniformity among jurisdictions, highlight the necessity of continuing examination and
advancement of these specialized courts.
In the end, MHCs are an important step in identifying
and resolving the connection between the criminal justice system and mental health. Still, their
success depends on a determined effort to improve their conception and application to serve
people and communities better.
5
References
1.
Dean, R. (2017, May).
What is the Impact of Mental Health Courts? A Systematic
Literature Review Literature Review
. SOPHIA: St. Catherine University's Institutional
Repository.
https://sophia.stkate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1723&context=msw_papers
2.
Goulet, M. H., Dellazizzo, L., Deschênes, C. L., Lesage, A., Crocker, A. G., &
Dumais, A. (2022).
Effectiveness of Forensic Assertive Community Treatment on
Forensic and Health Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
. Just a moment..
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00938548211061489
3.
Poteet, A. (2022, April 20).
Can improved mental healthcare for youth reduce juvenile
detention?
CJJ | The Coalition for Juvenile Justice.
https://www.juvjustice.org/blog/1375
4.
SKEEM, J. L., & LOWENKAMP, C. L. (2016, November 3).
RISK, RACE, AND
RECIDIVISM: PREDICTIVE BIAS AND DISPARATE IMPACT
. Wiley Online Library.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1745-9125.12123
5.
Watson, A., & Angell, B. (2015, November 29).
Applying Procedural Justice Theory to
Law Enforcement's Response to Persons With Mental Illness
. ResearchGate | Find and
share research.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6300016_Applying_Procedural_Justice_Theory
_to_Law_Enforcement%27s_Response_to_Persons_With_Mental_Illness
6.
Lowder, E. M., Rade, C. B., & Desmarais, S. L. (2018). Effectiveness of mental health
courts in reducing recidivism: A meta-analysis.
Psychiatric Services
,
69
(1), 15-22.