Section 4: Conclusion: Provide a focused, concise conclusion based on your analysis of the articles, explaining why Mental Health Courts should or should not be used.
Michelle_Michy
MENTALHEALTHCOURTS.docx7
The Effectiveness of Mental Health Court
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliations
Instructor
Course
Date
The Effectiveness of Mental Health Court
Introduction
The government implemented mental health courts to assist criminal defendants that have been diagnosed with a mental health condition that played a crucial role in their criminal offense. Despite the increasing number of mental courts in the United States and around the globe, data focusing on their efficacy have only started to show in recent years. As a result, many research studies have assessed the effectiveness of m entail health courts in combating criminal behavior based on the current evidence. Many Courts in the United States and Canada reported an increasing number of defendants with mental health conditions. In some states, the increase surpassed the 10% mark annually (Loong et al., 2019). As a response to such issues, mental health courts are established to assist criminal defendants that may fail to meet the not guilty criteria based on the reason of insanity that is the primary contributing factor to criminal behavior. Based on the current evidence from different scholarly articles, the mental health courts have played a crucial role in reducing recidivism among individuals with mental health conditions since they have therapeutic goals relative to the traditional court system.
Summary of the Main Points in the Articles
Costopoulos & Wellman (2017) argues that mental health courts are created as an attempt to divert the increasingly vast number of individuals with severe mental health conditions that have engaged in criminal activity to enter court-obligated treatment instead of following the traditional court system. The article also indicates that approximately 321884 million prisoners suffered severe mental health conditions based on the current set of data. The numbers are also expected to increase in the coming years. The study also mentioned various advantages of the mental health court system. It argued that the court system is essential since it helps connect criminals with mental health conditions to join mental health treatment. The research backs this evidence using various research studies such as the Two Florida MHCs study, which stated that 82% and 73% of its respondents are connected to mental health treatment facilities which helped them go through their condition.
The vast number of individuals with mental disorders in the justice system is a significant national challenge. The number of individuals entering the United States jails that have experienced mental health disorders, according to Snedker, Beach, & Corcoran (2017) is estimated to be approximately between 6$ and 15%. Moreover, the jail admissions of criminals with mental illnesses are around 804000 annually. Individuals suffering from this condition who are incarcerated are also expected to serve longer jail terms than those serving similar crimes. For this reason, the article mentions that implementing the mental health system has played a crucial role in limiting the unnecessary conviction of criminals with mental health conditions. To curb recidivism among individuals' mental disorders, many families have established specialized court systems. Relative to the ancient court systems, mental health courts have therapeutic goals to reduce criminal involvement and increase obedience to treatment. Around the globe, mental health courts have proliferated. However, according to this article, a minimal number of research studies have evaluated their effectiveness and determine whether it is indeed true that they can curb recidivism.
Compare and Contrast the Authors\' Perspectives on the Advantages and Disadvantages of Mental Health Courts.
The primary objective of mental health courts is to offer criminal offenders resources and services such as financial assistance, housing, employment, and treatment. Costopoulos & Wellman (2017) and Loong et al., (2019) reach the same perspective that mental health courts have played a crucial role in reducing recidivism rates. They argue that since the specialty court system is implemented to target specific needs, there is a high possibility that criminal offenders will receive an extensive level of help when they join the initiative relative to an incarceration program. Snedker, Beach, & Corcoran (2017) also supports this assertion by stating that if the offender can find employment, housing and receive financial assistance, research has indicated that they are less likely to go back to their criminal life. Costopoulos & Wellman (2017) also mentions that it plays a crucial role in reducing incarceration costs apart from curbing recidivism rates. One of the primary objectives of implementing mental health courts was to reduce costs. An offender in prison consumes a lot of taxpayer money. For this reason, keeping offenders in community-based programs and out of prison may be vital in cutting costs drastically. In doing so, Loong et al., (2019) believes that such treatment and programs help to leverage the lives of offenders. In these courts, treatment is mandatory. Criminal offenders engaging in counseling and getting the assistance they need will leverage their lives. Based on the perspectives of the three authors, it is apparent that they conclude that mental health courts curb overall recidivism, offer effective rehabilitation, and are also crucial in reducing costs by using resources effectively.
Costopoulos & Wellman (2017) and Snedker, Beach, & Corcoran (2017) argue that with the increase in the number of individuals suffering from mental health disorders, treatment centers and facilities are complete. In other words, there are waiting lists, and some offenders may take a while to start getting assistance. Such issues result in devastating effects on the offender and the criminal justice system since there is a reasonable number of mentally ill offenders left untreated. On the other hand, Loong et al., (2019) mentions that the mandatory treatment prescribed by the mental health court system is sometimes unethical. There are serious concerns about forcing a person to undertake therapy against their will. The court system explains that if the offender obliges to the conditions, they will have no choice but to be incarcerated. Doing so and leaves the offender with little or no choice. Regardless of the limitations of the mental health court, the authors reach the same perspective regarding the disadvantages and advantages of the court system.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the mental health court was established as a diversion initiative for criminal justice offenders having mental health conditions. With the increasing number of criminals diagnosed with a mental disorder being imprisoned, many countries saw the need to establish a different specialty court to help address their deeds. Offenders in the mental health court specifically possess co-occurring disorders such as substance abuse or mental health issues. They also have other areas of need, such as lack of support, housing, and employment. The mental health court has played a crucial role in assisting such offenders with meeting some areas of their need while ensuring that some of the requirements are addressed. Research indicates that sending mentally ill offenders may not be crucial in curbing recidivism. However, the primary objective of the mental health court is to offer resources and offenders to which may also curb their chances of criminal offenders returning to their criminal behaviors. As such, the findings of the three articles have indicated that this type of court system plays a crucial role in improving the livelihood of the offenders while simultaneously curbing recidivism. Although it has some obvious benefits, the articles also mention severe concerns about the forced treatment offenders receive since sometimes they are left with no choice but to obey. Therefore, there is a need to establish strategies that will ensure that the mental health court system functions effectively and can meet the needs of the ever-increasing population of mentally ill offenders.
References
Costopoulos, J. S., & Wellman, B. L. (2017). The effectiveness of one mental health court: Overcoming criminal history. Psychological Injury and Law, 10(3), 254-263.
Loong, D., Bonato, S., Barnsley, J., & Dewa, C. S. (2019). The effectiveness of mental health courts in reducing recidivism and police contact: a systematic review. Community mental health journal, 55(7), 1073-1098.
Snedker, K. A., Beach, L. R., & Corcoran, K. E. (2017). Beyond the “revolving door?”: Incentives and criminal recidivism in a mental health court. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44(9), 1141-1162.
