NCJ Number
139046
Journal
Behavioral Sciences and the Law Volume: 10 Issue: 3 Dated: (Summer 1992), 407-418
Date Published
1992
Length
12 pages
Annotation
One alternative to the criminalization trend of mentally ill offenders is the involvement of clinicians in the diversion of offenders from the criminal justice system to treatment facilities. The authors maintain that current practices are lacking on both conceptual and empirical grounds.
Abstract
The most compelling argument for diversion is on humanitarian grounds. A second reason given is the opportunity to address the substantive issues facing the court. Opponents of clinical diversion point to the increased complexity of the matters placed before the courts, the lack of legal standards and specific clinical guidelines for whom to divert and under what circumstances, and the conflict of interest for clinicians who generally advocate diversion. Court reports and studied diversion recommendations on a sample of 311 defendants referred to a Toronto outpatient service for evaluations of their competency to stand trial were used to determine patterns regarding recommendations for outpatient and inpatient treatment. The findings showed a relationship between index offense and likelihood of outpatient recommendations. The authors' concern regarding potential racial bias in diversion recommendations was not supported. Only 1.8 percent of the reports recommended custody rather than diversion. The lack of consistency or use of objective criteria in these recommendations was put forth by the authors as an argument against diversion. 1 table, 73 references, and 1 appendix