NCJ Number
191834
Journal
Corrections Compendium Volume: 26 Issue: 10 Dated: October 2001 Pages: 4,25
Date Published
October 2001
Length
2 pages
Annotation
This article presents information on mental health courts.
Abstract
Mental health courts exist for offenders whose illnesses are thought to have contributed to their alleged crimes, and who could benefit from a proactive approach involving assessment, medication, counseling, housing, training, and employment, versus a strictly punitive approach with little or no access to mental health care. A 1994 landmark case cleared the way for the Nation’s first mental health court. The four original mental health courts are located in Broward County, Florida, Anchorage, Alaska, King County, Washington, and San Bernardino, California. The four original mental health courts are voluntary, allow for prior felony convictions but are carefully screened for violent offenders, and accept offenders only if their involvement with the criminal justice system was a direct result of an illness. In each of these courts, the judge makes the final decision after considering a multidisciplinary team’s input--with the exception of Broward County, which requires a team consensus. According to the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, 25 to 40 percent of people classified as mentally ill will come into contact with the criminal justice system at some point in their lives. Most of those seen in mental health courts are psychotic or bipolar; 50 percent are homeless; and 80 percent are substance abusers. One of the greatest challenges when dealing with the mentally ill is obtaining treatment services for those who also are substance abusers. Facilities generally are equipped to accept one or the other. A key characteristic of such diversion-oriented courts is that offenders “opt in” to the program. They are given the option of staying in a traditional court or having their trial waived and receiving a court-ordered treatment plan, which may be in conjunction with a deferred or reduced sentence. One area of concern is the initial screening process where it must be determined whether the client understands the implications of the decision to “opt in” or not. Another concern is that the court determines whether the client is making adequate progress, which does not necessarily translate to the treatment plan being followed to the letter. 7 references