Mentally Ill Offenders and Criminal Justice, Research Paper Example

Abstract

This paper identifies issues and conflicts surrounding the criminal justice system and the mentally ill offenders. In order to understand the issues, this paper tackles the following:

1. Evaluation of how the criminal justice systems currently address the issue, from inception to conclusion;
2. Analysis of how the issue impact society and criminal justice organizations;
3. Current methodology and practices by organizations addressing the issue;
4. Procedural factors restricting or enhancing addressing the issue (both legal and practical);
5. How the criminal justice system, as a whole, addresses the issue;
6. Improvements for the criminal justice system to address the issue;
7. A comprehensive plan of action from criminal justice organizations to most effectively address the chosen issue; and
8. How the use of technology impacts the issue selected.

Mentally Ill Offenders and Criminal Justice

Evaluation of Mentally Ill Offenders and Criminal Justice

At the start of the new century, United States of America has been dubbed as one of the leaders in incarceration all over the world. This statistics is based on the fact that the country has one of the highest prison populations. However, the incarceration is not based on the rising rates of crime but rather on very distinctive policies, decision-making, and other areas and aspects of policies and governance (Whitmer, 1980). Regardless of the policies, there are cases where incarceration is not regarded to be an effective method in reducing offenders and crime rates even with the substantial social and financial cost related to it. In 2006, it has been reported by the Bureau of Justice Statistics that there are about 705,600 mentally ill offenders (adults) in various state prisons, about 78,800 in federal prison while there are about 479,900 incarcerated in local jails. In addition, it is revealed that about 16% of incarcerated individuals are suffering from certain mental illness while about 14% have been hospitalized or treated for mental illness. It is also stated that about ¼ of the total population of incarcerated women are suffering from mental illness and 700,000 of incarcerated individuals are actively battling mental illness and co-occurring substance exploitation. The dilemma that is facing the criminal justice system and its relation with the mentally ill offenders lies on where does justice system draw the line of rehabilitation and treatment. As a matter of fact, the current trend in the criminal justice system and metal health suggested a shift from psychiatric hospitals to prison cells (Lamberti, 2007). Over the past decade, an estimated 40 state psychiatric and mental facilities have closed while 400 penitentiaries have opened. The progression of this trend will result to jails and penitentiaries-state, local and federal- housing more mentally ill people than mental facilities. This can be due to the fact that the justice system has adopted a punitive approach to mentally ill offenders. The criminalization of mental illness extends harsh punishment for offenses related to drugs and restricted access to various sustenance systems like welfare. However, contentions have it that mentally ill offenders are being incongruously processed in the criminal justice system rather than the mental health system. There are broad categories in which a mentally ill offender may be processed in the criminal justice system. These are: a) commission of illegal and prohibited acts as set off by mental illness such as public intoxication, trespassing, disorderly conduct and disturbance of peace; b) crimes committed for sustenance such as petty theft, prostitution, shoplifting and the likes; c) serious crimes like assault, burglary and robbery. In this situation, the criminal justice system is likely to engage in crimes on the 3^rd category due to its seriousness and the gravity (Schmidhauser, 1963).

It is a known fact that people with mental illness are more likely to engage in activities and exhibit behaviors that will be in conflict with the judicial system. They are more likely to re-offend as well especially with the commission of minor and nuisance crimes. The truth remains, though, that mental illness’ contribution to violence and breaking of the law is relatively small as compared to other offenders. It is estimated that about only 4% of reported homicides were committed by seriously mentally ill offenders (Dupont & Cochran, 2000). Despite this, there seems to be a lack of comprehension between the level of ferocity and the condition related to mental illness. Hence, there is an on-going fear in terms of the proper handling of crimes involving mentally ill offenders. Police tactics involving confrontations, periods of incarceration, intervention of the justice system and steps in rehabilitation are being challenged considerably. Nevertheless, the impact this issue has in the society and the criminal justice organizations is something that should not be taken lightly as the rights of the offenders, criminally sane or insane, as well as the safety of the public must not be jeopardized (Nielssen & Large, 2008).

Impact in the Society and Criminal Justice Organizations

With the aforementioned information, it is clear that the criminalization and incarceration of mentally ill offenders is an occurrence that is affecting not just the people working in the field of law enforcement, social workers, mental health workers, courts and the justice/correction system but as well as families and the society in general. There are several ways in which this issue is affecting and impacting the society and the criminal justice organizations- neither of them is more important than another. Putting more mentally ill offenders in prisons cost the society more than the non-mentally ill ones. This is due to the need to increase staffing. In Broward County, Florida, alone, a $130 daily budget is needed to house a mentally ill offender as compared to a budget of $80 to house a regular inmate. It is likewise reported that an annual cost of $22,000 is needed to support a regular prisoner while there is a need for $30,000 to $50,000 annual budget for a mentally ill offender. The provision of prescription drugs for mentally ill prisoners are said to have exceeded the costs needed to feed the inmates. Not to mention the cost of psychiatric examinations needed which is very expensive.

The criminalization of mentally ill offenders poses a threat to the well-being of the offenders. Prisons are not equipped to properly take care of people with mental illness. The problem, then, is the lack of proper care and after care for mentally ill individuals resulting to recidivism. The state has an obligation to uphold the rights inherent to humanity – outside and from behind bars. There might be some help being afforded to these prisoners but not enough for a sustainable medical assistance. In this regard, the overcrowding, the rising cost of housing mentally ill offenders and the deterioration of health are costing the taxpayers huge amount of money that could have been allocated to education, welfare and other subsistence support.

Current Methodology and Practices

The current methodology that is being practiced by the justice system involves the establishment of the “guilty but mentally ill” laws designed to mitigate any abuse that might result from utilizing the insanity defense. It cannot be denied that some of the most heinous crimes committed have the suspects plead insanity. Just in the case of Jeffrey Dahmer who murdered 17 people just to satisfy some perverted sexual fantasies. Dahmer committed the crimes of rape, murder, and dismemberment of the victims. During the trial, it was revealed that Dahmer committed necrophilia and cannibalism as well. Dahmer was diagnosed with borderline personality disorder, schizotypal personality disorder and psychotic disorder. Regardless, the court found Dahmer legally sane and guilty of the 15 murders committed and was sentenced to 15 terms of life imprisonment. Without the proper usage of the guilty but mentally ill laws, and the insanity plea, Dahmer would have been found not guilty due to insanity. It will not just put Dahmer in greater danger but mostly the society. Yet, these laws are being attacked by the public due to the perception that people, by virtue of insanity, are getting away with crimes-mostly heinous. The guilty but insane laws allows people to be found guilty and be imposed with the proper verdict as anyone would have been rendered to someone who was not mentally ill. However, rather than be incarcerated for the whole time, treatment might be afforded in a mental facility than in a prison cell for a certain period of time or the whole sentence.

Procedural Factors

One of the procedural factors that enhance the manner by which justice systems and organizations address the issue is police contact or pre-booking. Police officers are the first contact of the mentally ill offenders upon commission of a crime or upon disturbance. The police officers are given a wide range of discretion to determine the course of action to be conducted in dealing with the crime. In lieu of the severity of the crimes committed or the disturbance made, a police officer can hospitalize, make arrest or conduct an informal disposition of the suspect. The police officers are trained to practice their discretion or resources available to them taking into consideration the behavior of the suspect at the time of the encounter. However, in theory, this discretion seems to be a good way in dealing with the mentally ill offenders. Yet, in reality, the case is not the same. The wide discretion that is supposed to be granted and utilized by the police officers are being limited and considerably restricted by legal benchmarks surrounding the manner in which police officers and the general law enforcement organizations perform their job. These benchmarks and criteria include, but are not limited to, available community-based treatments, involuntary and voluntary commitment, available mental health facilities, and other bureaucratic policies and procedures necessary for admission and commitment.

Criminal Justice and Mentally Ill Offenders

Using the statistics and the data given, it is clear that while the psychiatric beds are getting more and more unavailable for people with serious mental illness, the number of incarceration is rapidly increasing. How is the criminal justice system handling the issue then?

Seriously mentally ill offenders are being incarcerated more than being put to a psychiatric facility for treatment. In all the 50 states, it is said that the ratio that a mentally ill offenders will be incarcerated is 3.2:1. Meaning to say, more seriously mentally ill offenders are being thrown in jail than in hospitals. This trend can be attributed to the fact that people can use and abuse the insanity plea and guilty but insane laws and get away with crimes (Compton, 2008). Since the justice system is being faced with more mentally ill offenders in jail, it is imperative that these individuals receive the appropriate support, treatment and care they need in order to rehabilitate them properly.

Improvements for the Criminal Justice System

The system is very much focused on criminalizing the offenders with serious and apparent mental illness that it sometimes forgets the need to better public policy and approach. There are different steps and improvements that can be utilized in order to provide a more effective approach in dealing with mentally ill offenders and their rehabilitation. Some of the improvements necessary are the following (Hartford, et.al., 2007):

• Development of various resources from the community such as mental health services made available and accessible even in emergency situation. This will reduce the commission of a crime when people can easily access mental help.
• Allocation of proper amount of funding for alternatives to incarceration. Alternatives must be community-based and are equipped with experienced and knowledgeable mental healthcare staff ready to deliver services.
• More collaboration with the community, families and groups advocating for mental health care improvement, initiatives and treatment.
• Development of programs that will cater aggressively to people with known mental illness and those that are potentially suffering and experiencing mental illness. These programs should not be limited to assessment and treatment but extend to case management as well. There is also a need for the expansion of housing and subsistence support.
• Possible re-instatement of benefits not just to the mentally ill offenders but all individuals after serving their sentence. Assistance must be afforded to them in the filing of forms necessary.
• Promotion of state protection and advocacy agency that advocates for the protection of the rights of mentally ill offenders and people with mental illness.

Comprehensive Plan of Action

A comprehensive plan of action in addressing the issue must include (Hanafi, 2008):

1. Community Services. The key to changing the system lies in the improvement of community services. Not all crimes committed by mentally ill offenders. The criminal justice system must divert to a civil system when dealing with petty crimes. The integration of mental health services and support can break recidivism.
2. Specialized Police Units. Designation of special police units that are trained and skilled in providing immediate response to crimes and crisis that involve mentally challenged individuals. These police officers must be trained in assessing medication, history, and support system.
3. Improving Post-Bail/Jail Support. Specific needs of the offenders must be provided for them while they are in jail to complete the rehabilitation process. Initial evaluation, cognitive assessment and evaluation must be properly conducted right away as soon as possible by an impartial clinical psychologist. In addition, the collaboration of all the people involved in the case must be heightened in order to ensure that protocols are followed accordingly.
4. Misdemeanour charges must be diverted to a treatment from a mental health facility as soon as possible. This is in order to prevent a commission of a more serious crime. Prevention is better than cure. Offenders with possible mental illness diagnosis must be treated and put in a program to help them manage their situation and save the criminal justice system tons of money from incarcerating them.

Technology, Mentally Ill Offenders and Criminal Justice

The advancement of technology can pose breakthroughs in allowing the criminal justice to address the problems surrounding it. Technology will provide tools not just in safeguarding the safety of the offenders but as well as the general public. It has to be reminded that the main problem concerning the offenders is the status of their mental health. With the advancement in technology, new medications will be available. Better and improved medication that can help in managing the illness can be afforded to the public. In addition, improved electronic monitoring will be used not just for the monitoring of mentally ill offenders released on parole or probation but also for the monitoring of their treatments and medication. In terms of the medical advancement, scientists are now able to identify the DNA components of people that are related to aggression, fretfulness, autism, shyness and even impulsiveness. Genetics have already been found to relate and play an imperative role in the behavior of people (Schanda, 2005). With all these advances in both the medical field and technology, prevention and intervention will be improved leading to proper treatment of mentally ill offenders and individuals.

Conclusion

With all the foregoing, it cannot be denied that the criminal justice system is in for a long haul when it comes to addressing the problems and issues surrounding the mentally ill offenders and its management. However, these issues will not be resolved by converting the jails into mental institutions. Despite the fact that the law enforcement agencies have to uphold the law and make sure that no one is getting away with committing a crime, a line must be drawn between sanity and insanity-driven crimes. They have to protect the society without jeopardizing the offenders as well. It would seem that to put them in mental facilities is not fair but sometimes the act of a crime is rooted from mental illness that was neglected (Wells & Eaton, 2002).

References

Compton, M. (2008). A Comprehensive Review of Extant Research on Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) Programs. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 36(1):47-55.

Dupont, R. & Cochran, S. (2000). Police Response to Mental Health Emergencies: Barriers to Change. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 28(3): 338-344.

Hanafi, S. (2008). Incorporating Crisis Intervention Team Knowledge and Skills into the Daily Work of Police Officers: A Focus Group Study. Community Mental Health Journal, 44(6): 427-432.

Hartford, K., Carey, R. & Mendonca, J. (2007). Pretrial Court Diversion of People with Mental Illness. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services and Research, 34(2): 198-205.

Lamberti, J. (2007). Understanding and Preventing Criminal Recidivism among Adults with Psychotic Disorders. Psychiatric Services, 58(6): 773-781.

Nielssen, O. & Large, M. (2008). Rates of Homicide During the First Episode of Psychosis and After Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 36(4): 702-712.

Schanda, H. (2005). Psychiatry Reforms and Illegal Behavior of Severely Mentally Ill. The Lancet, 365(9457), 367-369.

Schmidhauser, J. (1963). Constitutional Law in the Political Process. Chicago: Rand Mcnally & Company.

Wells, M. & Eaton, T. (2002). Constitutional Remedies: A Reference Guife to the United States Constitution. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Whitmer, G. (1980). From Hospitals to Jails: The Fate of California’s Deinstitutionalized Mentally Ill. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 50:60-75.