Various researches have indicated that a significant number of individuals convicted by the US criminal justice system are mentally ill. According to Long (2014), an estimated 50% of the US prison population were individuals suffering from some form of mental illness. Long (2014) also quotes research by James and Glaze, which approximated the population of mentally ill prisoners to be 1.26 million, accounting for 45%, 56%, and 64% of federal offenders, state offenders, and jail inmates, respectively. Long asserts that most research studies have estimated that mentally ill offenders account for about half or more of the prison population. Peterson and Heinz (2016) indicate that the proportion of incarcerated individuals with serious mental illness could be approximated to be between 14% and 16 %, representing more than one million individuals. The glaring statistics of the number of mentally ill incarcerated individuals have led to the criminalization of mentally ill individuals (Peterson & Heinz, 2016). Through a literature review, Peterson and Heinz sought to understand the scenarios surrounding the overrepresentation of offenders with serious mental illnesses in jails and prisons. Peterson and Heinz’s research work was titled “Understanding Offenders with Serious Mental Illness in the Criminal Justice System.” This paper presents the premise, synthesis according to positivist criminology theories, and a critical evaluation of Peterson and Heinz’s article.
Identification of Premise and Supporting Points
Peterson and Heinz (2016) present the argument that the overrepresentation of individuals with serious mental illnesses in US prisons and jails is not merely because of mental illness’s direct causation in criminal behavior. The authors assert that multiple factors, intricately connected, contribute to the high prevalence of prisoners with serious mental illnesses. The authors start their discussion by acknowledging that mental illness could be a direct causation for criminal behavior. Peterson and Heinz argue that mental illness symptoms could be a direct causation for committing a crime, for example, when a mentally ill person attacks a stranger due to paranoid delusions. Schizophrenia, major depression, and bipolar disorder are cited as some serious mental illnesses that are acceptable in the criminal justice system as a direct causation for a crime. The authors challenge this categorization by asserting that other mental issues, including depressive rage, post-traumatic disorder (PTSD), and suicidality, could be causes for criminal behavior. Peterson and Heinz (2016) conclude their discussion on the direct causation of severe mental illness in crime by presenting the findings of other research studies which have indicated that the mental illness symptoms are only attributed to about 4% to 12% of the criminal activities committed by individuals with mental illnesses. These statistics indicate that a majority of the crimes, 88% to 96% of the crimes committed by individuals with serious mental illness, are not related to their mental wellbeing.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Peterson and Heinz (2016) support their premise by advancing the argument that mental illness criminalization bears some responsibility for the overrepresentation of individuals with serious mental illness in prisons and jails. The deinstitutionalization of mental health hospitals led to shorter hospital stays for patients with mental illness. However, the patients could not access sufficient care in their communities due to mental health institutions’ inadequacies. Consequently, individuals with serious mental illness started ending up in jails and prisons in an attempt by police officers to secure treatment for the mentally ill. The criminalization of mental illness leads to the arrest of mentally ill individuals, even for the slightest of the crimes leading to their incarceration.
The difficulties experienced by mentally ill offenders within the criminal justice system contribute to their high overrepresentation in jails and prisons. Peterson and Heinz (2016) support their premise by articulating some of the difficulties experienced by mentally ill offenders, unlike their non-mentally ill counterparts. A notable difficulty is that the seriously mentally ill are likely to be impoverished and may not afford to pay for attorney services. Lack of good legal representation is linked to higher chances of being convicted for a crime. Peterson and Heinz posit that mentally ill offenders may also have issues understanding the court procedures or offering assistance to their attorneys. The mentally ill are also prone to failing to understand police interrogations and may end up giving false confessions. The aforestated difficulties are linked to higher chances for the mentally ill persons’ convictions and thus their overrepresentation in jails and prisons.
Peterson and Heinz (2016) further support their premise by asserting that mentally ill offenders are similar to non-mentally ill offenders in terms of their proneness to commit crime due to criminal risk factors. All the criminal risk factors that would make non-mentally ill individuals commit a crime would equally make their mentally ill counterparts engage in crime regardless of their mental illnesses. Crime risk factors include substance abuse, troubled family, poverty, antisocial cognition, amongst others. Peterson and Heinz (2016) support this argument by presenting the findings of a research which indicated that the recidivism rates for individuals who had been granted conditional release were at 30% and mainly attributed to other risk factors such as unemployment and substance abuse and not mental illness symptoms.
Synthesis
The premise and the supporting arguments advanced by Peterson and Heinz are aligned to some of the positivist school of criminology theories. The positivist school of criminology theories seek to find the biological, social, and psychological factors in criminal behavior and obtaining positive knowledge that can influence social life (Snipes et al., 2019). Peterson and Heinz’s arguments are aligned to the use of the medical model in the criminal justice system as advanced by Lombroso ( Heidt& Wheeldon , 2014). Lombroso argued that offenders were mentally ill individuals and not evil or immoral elements. Consequently, offenders needed to get treatment and not merely being punished. Although Peterson and Heinz advance the argument of seriously mentally ill offenders and not the general offenders, the argument by Lombroso is synonymous to theirs in that mentally ill offenders need to get mental treatment besides being punished for their crime. The multi-factor causation (psychological, social, and biological) advanced by Lambroso is also synonymous with the argument advanced by Peterson and Heinz (Snipes et al., 2019).
Peterson and Heinz’s (2016) arguments are also aligned to the positivist criminology theory, which links crime to social factors, including environmental influences. The social positivist theory states that social factors, including limited opportunities (unemployment and poverty), poor family support, high crime prevalence in the neighborhood, play an essential role in influencing individuals to engage in crime (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), 2018). The reasoning advanced by the social positivist theory is in agreement with the arguments by Peterson and Heinz (2016), who understate that other risk factors for crime, including social one, are a causation for engaging in crime amongst the mentally ill.
Critical Evaluation
Peterson and Heinz (2016) present an excellent article that seeks to fill a knowledge gap in society and clear the misunderstandings surrounding mentally ill offenders. The authors present a valid problem in society, the overrepresentation of seriously mentally ill offenders in prisons and jails. The background to this problem is the high inceration rates of mentally ill individuals and a lack of a comprehensive prison system that takes care of individuals with mental health issues. The prison system is designed to punish offenders and not take care of mentally ill offenders. Although mental health services are offered in jails and prisons, their provision faces challenges, including staff shortage. Mentally ill offenders do not receive the much-needed care and end up running into more troubles while within the prisons and when released and thus their longer prison stays and recidivism rates.
Literature indicates that the problem of overrepresentation of seriously mentally ill patients in prisons and jails is quite dire. Peterson and Heinz (2016) estimate the percentage of incarcerated individuals suffering from severe or persistent mental illness to be about 14% to 16%. The figure represents more than one million persons diagnosed with mental conditions classified as severe mental illness such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and depression. The likelihood of breaking parole terms by mentally ill offenders is twice that of their non-mentally ill counterparts. Recidivism amongst mentally ill offenders occurs within the first year of release (Peterson & Heinz, 2016). Peterson and Henz’s suggestion for the overrepresentation of seriously mentally ill offenders is that the various stakeholders should design comprehensive programs for the mentally ill offenders and not merely offering them mental health treatment. The comprehensive program would include vocational training and provision of basic facilities such as housing and healthcare upon release from prisons. Such programs would help keep the mentally ill away from crime since mental illness is not the only causation for criminal behavior; rather, a myriad of other factors are often at play.
The authors’ solution to the existent problem was presented following a synthesis study of the existent researches on mental illness and criminal behavior. The authors investigated the causation of criminal activities amongst the mentally ill and concluded that criminal tendencies were not merely influenced by mental illness symptoms. Crime-solving approaches focusing on mental treatment only amongst the mentally ill were insufficient; thus, they recommend a comprehensive approach that considers all the other causative factors. The methodology used is sound since it is based on scientific researches that are peer-reviewed.
Peterson and Heinz conclude that the success of crime involvement approaches amongst the mentally ill is dependent on the institution of comprehensive programs that take care of all their needs and not their mental health symptoms treatment only. This is because the criminal behavior amongst the mentally ill is influenced by several factors and not only the mental illness. This article’s findings could be adopted by the various criminal justice system players, including law enforcers, medical practitioners, and social workers. Federal and state governments could use the research findings to tailor programs to help reduce crime involvement among the mentally ill and consequently realize cost savings in terms of running prisons and jails.
References
Heidt, J., & Wheeldon, J. P. (2014). Introducing criminological thinking: Maps, theories, and understanding . SAGE Publications, Inc.
Long, C. (2014, January 6). Mentally ill offenders involved with the US criminal justice system . Journalist’s Resource. Retrieved February 8, 2021, from https://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-justice/mentally-ill-offenders-u-s-criminal-justice-system/
Peterson, J., & Heinz, K. (2016). Understanding offenders with serious mental illness in the criminal justice system. Mitchell Hamline L. Rev. , 42 , 537.
Snipes, J. B., Gerould, A. L., & Bernard, T. (2019). Vold’s Criminological theory (8th ed.). Oxford University Press, USA.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). (2018, May). Organized crime module 6 key issues: Positivism - Environmental influences . United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. https://www.unodc.org/e4j/en/organized-crime/module-6/key-issues/positivism-environmental-influences.html
