Mental health courts (MHCs) are responsible for connecting offenders who would normally be incarcerated to long lasting community-based treatment (Lowder, et al., 2018). They depend on mental health evaluations, individualized cure plans, and ongoing judicial supervision to address both the public security concerns of communities and the psychological well-being needs of offenders. Similar to other problem solving courts such as community courts, domestic violence courts, and drug courts, mental health courts aim at addressing the main issues contributing to criminal behavior (Costopoulos, et al., 2017). Additional, these courts are quite similar to crisis intervention teams, probation and parole case loads, and jail diversion programs purposed to address the important overrepresentation of individuals with psychological health illness in the criminal court justice.
This paper will try to investigate whether or not mental health courts are effective in treating offenders and preventing recidivism. It will also focus on three articles discussing the same, and compare and contrast the authors' points of view. Statistics will be provided in support of the authors' findings and a conclusion made at the end.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Discussion
Summary of Article #1
In this article by Lowder, et al. (2018), the authors' start by informing readers that the mental health courts which were introduced in the late '90s were created to address increasing numbers of adults with psychological illnesses in the criminal justice system. The courts function mainly as post-booking diversion programs whereby defendants willingly agree to judicial supervision of community-based psychological health treatment. This is usually done in exchange for a reduced or dismissed index charge following triumphant completion (Luskin & Ray, 2015). The authors then raise the significant question of whether or not MHCs are effective in the reduction of reoffending among justice-incorporated adults with psychological illnesses.
The authors carried out a meta-analytic experiment and found a constructive effect, moderate in size, on recidivism (Luskin & Ray, 2015). They also discovered that there is proof of published prejudice and a superior level of heterogeneity across effect sizes. Data evaluation was done using random-effect model given the known variability in the operation and design of mental health courts. Heterogeneity was evaluated with Cochran's Q statistic, showing the existence of heterogeneity, and with I 2 approximating the quantity of it (Loader, etc al., 2018). I 2 values of 25%, 50%, and 75% represented low, moderate, and superior heterogeneity (Lowder, et al., 2018).
A total of 17 researches of 16, 29 participants were recorded from 2004 up to 2015. A majority of these studies, according to the authors of this article, were from peer-reviewed publications rather than dissertations and reports (Lowder, et al., 2018). Recidivism was more often gauged over a one year period than over a time period longer than that. Notably, the length of follow up did not actually moderate the effect of mental health courts participation, and this suggested prolonged reductions in recidivism over time. However, as the authors cite, there were stronger effects when recidivism was gauged soon after leaving the mental health courts as compared to after enrollment (Luskin & Ray, 2015).
This may be a reflection of the intensive community monitoring of the courts' participants and the broad practice of using jail as an endorsement for disobedience. The authors conclude the article by stating that they support the effectiveness of mental health courts in reducing recidivism, but also emphasize on the significant directions for future studies.
Summary of Article #2
This article by Costopoulos, et al. (2017) talks about an investigation which discovered that mental health courts actually curb recidivism. According to the authors, a recent study from Florida Institute of Technology has discovered that criminal defendants who graduate from mental health courts tend to exhibit substantially reduced re-arrest rates a complete 3 years after their release (Luskin & Ray, 2015). This is considered the longest period of post-booking program behavior to be tested in a published research incorporating MHCs. It is also the clearest indicator yet of the possibility of diversionary programs to lessen the load on the county's congested prison system.
The investigation carried out by the authors used information on 118 respondents in Brevard graduation (Costopolous, et al., 2017). The findings of the investigation indicated that for those who took part in MCHs before criminal behavior, no matter how serious, was not an actual indicator of post-release recidivism (Luskin & Ray, 2015). Even when the defendants reoffending due to failure to finish the full complement of support and treatment, they carried out less severe crimes in doing so, with the seriousness of crimes waning the longer they stayed in the mental health courts.
One of the authors points out that jails do not necessarily halt crime by the psychologically ill, but treatment actually does (Costopolous, et al., 2017). The courts help participants to find support to live autonomously and victoriously while undergoing treatment. Notably, conventional incarceration tends to be quite effective in reducing recidivism and actually worsen psychological health issues. The authors conclude this particular article by stating that MCHs mix judicial monitoring with community-based psychological health treatment and other supportive services (Luskin & Ray, 2015). It is important to invite defendants to take part in MHCs by agreement of the state lawyer and public defender.
Summary of Article #3
Lampkin (2016), in this article, starts by stating that MHCs are elements of the judiciary system that aim at resolving cases which involve offenders who are diagnosed as psychologically ill. These courts generally exist to serve people who have a recorded diagnoses and whose behavior is a consequence of their psychological health condition (Lampkin, 2016). Similar to conventional courts, MCHs also assist members of the judiciary satisfy the five main sentencing philosophies which are deterrence, rehabilitation, incapacitation, retribution, and restoration (Luskin & Ray, 2015).
According to the author, defendants who enroll in mental health courts are connected to community-based treatment services and programs. The courts also make an effort to re-establish and revitalize psychologically ill offenders by expecting them to attend the program and come back for constant scheduled status hearings to evaluate obedience with the court order (Lampkin, 2016). The author then goes on to highlight a study that was carried out to investigate the effectiveness of MHCs. From a sample of 150 defendants, half were identified as having dual diagnoses, and the other half were identified as having a mental illness or a dual diagnosis alone (Luskin & Ray, 2016).
From the findings, there was clear evidence of the effectiveness of these courts. Of those respondents whose communication with the court had ended, 32% were observed to have completed successfully, whereas the remainder were considered not a success (Lampkin, 2016). Conclusively, the author states that it is not clear whether or not the MHCs have been triumphant in preventing future crimes from being carried out by offenders allowed to take part in the court.
Comparing and contrasting the articles
Looking at the three articles presented, the authors are in agreement that the mental health courts were created to address increasing numbers of adults with psychological illness in the American criminal justice system and curb recidivism. The authors also agree that a number of defendants have so far enrolled in the courts and results monitored. However, not all are in agreement regarding the effectiveness of the court. Lampkin (2016) clearly states at the conclusion of the article that he is yet to see any effective outcome from the MHC programs currently in use. The authors do not, therefore, come into the same conclusion.
Overall, the authors cite that mental health courts actually provide effective rehabilitation, reduce total recidivism rates, and are an effective utilization of resources. For example, out of about 15 articles that investigated recidivism rates following MHC programs, 13 of these discovered significant reduction days spent in jail and new arrests (Costopoulos, et al. 2017). Additionally, out of 1,000 participants, 44% spent fewer days in incarceration following mental health court participation. This is 82 days fewer in total compared to normal court defendants (Lowder, et al., 2018). With regards to expenses, mental health courts save a lot of money for taxpayers, $3.5 million to be exact, over a time period of two years.
Conclusion
Mental health courts (MHCs) were mainly created to divert psychologically ill individuals convicted of nonviolent crimes to monitored treatment instead of being jailed. Given that the number of such courts has recently increased, there is limited information as to the expenses and results of program offered. Mental health courts are beneficial in that they minimize recidivism rates for mentally ill individuals who enter the criminal justice system, and free up jail cells for more severe offenders. Contrarily, these courts not only further stigmatize psychological illness, but also coerce psychologically ill defendants to accept treattas a way of avoiding incarnation. Enrolling in a mental health court requires a guilty plea. Some of the defendants may not be in a position to make informed decisions, and thus end up in the courts, regardless.
References
Costopoulos, J.S., et al. (2017). 'Effectiveness of one mental health court: Overcoming criminal history.' Psychological Injury and Law . DOI: 10.1007/s12207-017-9290-x
Lampkin, D.A. (2016). 'Restorative justice model: Mental health courts.' Selected Works .
Lowder, E.M., et al. (2018). 'Effectiveness of mental health courts in reducing recidivism: A meta-analysis.' Psychiatr Service ., 69(1). Pp. 15 - 22.
Luskin, M., & Ray, B. (2015). 'Selection into mental health court.' 42(11). Pp. 1145 - 1158.
