The Politics of Benchcraft: The Role of Judges in Mental Health Courts

2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (02) ◽  
pp. 398-422 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ursula Castellano
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
The United States ◽  
Ethnographic Study ◽  
Psychiatric Disabilities ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Mental Health Courts ◽  
Occupational Role ◽  
Chronic Offenders ◽  
Institutional Challenges

Mental health courts (MHCs) offer community-based treatment in lieu of criminal prosecution for chronic offenders with psychiatric disabilities, and MHC judges enjoy expanded powers to achieve the court's objectives. Because scholars know little about how judges transition into a new occupational role in the problem-solving courtroom, this ethnographic study of four MHCs in the United States focuses on how judges learn to orchestrate their responses to treatment noncompliance in this novel court setting. The goal of this article is to examine the professionalization of MHC judges and the emergent craft of therapeutic adjudication. To achieve this goal, I investigate judicial strategies for motivating, questioning, and defending participants accused of wrongdoing. I conclude that the art and practice of problem-solving justice requires judges to rise to the larger institutional challenges embedded in the alternative courtroom, a process I call the politics of benchcraft.

Mental Health Courts

2019 ◽  
pp. 83-112
Author(s):  
David DeMatteo ◽  
Kirk Heilbrun ◽  
Alice Thornewill ◽  
Shelby Arnold
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
United States ◽  
Substance Abuse ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
The United States ◽  
Mental Health Court ◽  
Drug Courts ◽  
Mental Health Courts ◽  
Current State

This chapter focuses on mental health courts, a problem-solving court that developed in the wake of drug courts to address the needs of offenders with mental health diagnoses or co-occurring mental health and substance abuse concerns. In this chapter, the authors first review the overrepresentation of individuals with mental illness in the criminal justice system. They then describe the history and current state of mental health courts in the United States. The chapter then provides a detailed summary of the research on mental health courts. Although there is considerably less research on mental health courts than on drug courts, the available research provides reason to be cautiously optimistic. Within this discussion, the authors also note the limitations in mental health court research. Finally, the authors conclude the chapter with a discussion of innovative mental health court practices and the future of mental health courts.

Mental Health Courts

Criminology ◽  
2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Matejkowski
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
The United States ◽  
Program Completion ◽  
Mental Illnesses ◽  
Mental Health Courts ◽  
Relative Paucity ◽  
Code Violations ◽  
And Function

Mental health courts (MHCs) are specialized dockets for defendants with mental illnesses that seek the adjudication of criminal charges and municipal code violations by using a problem-solving model. Modeled after drug treatment courts, MHCs provide an alternative to incarceration for individuals with mental illness charged with criminal offenses. Mental health courts are but one of an array of problem-solving courts (PSCs) that have proliferated over the past three decades (e.g., drug courts, veterans courts, co-occurring disorder courts) and, as such, share come commonalities with these other PSCs. The populations served by these PSCs often overlap with MHCs as do many of the courts’ approaches (e.g., the use of incentives and sanctions to motivate clients to engage in treatment and support services). This entry will focus on MHCs but, when necessary, also include references pertaining to PSCs. Although MHCs may differ somewhat in structure and function by jurisdiction, this entry begins with resources (including reports, theoretical manuscripts, and empirical studies) identifying counts, structural components, and operational approaches common to MHCs. The entry then highlights the peer-reviewed literature on MHC outcomes, including program completion, recidivism, cost analysis, as well as alternative outcomes. Given the relative paucity of literature on juvenile MHCs, this entry focuses primarily on adult MHCs. Literature on juvenile MHCs is covered near the end of this entry. Similarly, the overwhelming majority of published research and commentary on MHCs pertains to MHCs that operate in the United States. This entry reflects that current state of the research. Finally, the entry concludes with published critiques of the MHC model.

Methodological Challenges in Retrospective Evaluation of Mental Health Court Effectiveness

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-105
Author(s):  
Kort C. Prince ◽  
Jeremiah W. Jaggers ◽  
Allyn Walker ◽  
Jess Shade ◽  
Erin B. Worwood
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
The United States ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Mental Health Courts ◽  
Retrospective Evaluation ◽  
Group Design ◽  
Alternative Approach ◽  
Problem Solving Courts ◽  
Ideal Approach ◽  
The Ideal

Mental Health Courts (MHCs) are problem-solving courts that have been implemented throughout the United States. One critical component of MHCs is determining their effectiveness and limitations. However, unique challenges are encountered when evaluating MHCs. One major challenge, and the focus of this paper, is identifying an adequate control group. The ideal approach to determining efficacy is using a controlled group design whereby participants are randomized to treatment or control conditions. However, this approach is not possible when conducting retrospective evaluation of court data. In addition, a specific set of ethical and logistical issues arise. Propensity score matching (PSM) provides an alternative approach for comparing groups when randomization is not possible. PSM works by first identifying the characteristics that make a person likely to be in treatment. We describe our attempts to use PSM in a MHC evaluation. Specific challenges with PSM are discussed and recommendations are made for use of PSM with MHCs.

Human Rights Progress in Psychiatry: More Apparent Than Real (Observations and Reflections on Life in the Texas Mental Health Courts)

2006 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 241-254
Author(s):  
John Breeding
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Other ◽  
Mental Health Courts ◽  
Modern Psychiatry ◽  
History Of ◽  
The One

The history of modern psychiatry includes a legacy of coercion and infamous physical and mechanical treatments, on the one hand, and progress in human rights, particularly patient rights, on the other. The purpose of this article is to remind readers that this modern progress in psychiatry is more apparent than real. The author’s experience with recent cases in the mental health courts is discussed in order to demonstrate the ongoing abuse of human rights in psychiatry. A brief look at other aspects of the current mental health climate in the United States is also provided, along with considerations of informed consent.

Courting Compliance: Case Managers as “Double Agents” in the Mental Health Court

2011 ◽  
Vol 36 (02) ◽  
pp. 484-514 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ursula Castellano
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Work Group ◽  
Case Managers ◽  
Ethnographic Study ◽  
Mental Health Court ◽  
Court Case ◽  
Mental Health Courts ◽  
Treatment Providers ◽  
Use Of Resources ◽  
Traditional Work

An ethnographic study of four Midwest mental health courts was focused on how case managers influence the judicial response to offender noncompliance. Mental health courts, which bear little resemblance to traditional work group models, are staffed by teams of legal and social service professionals working collaboratively toward reducing recidivism and community reintegration for high‐risk offenders. Few studies, however, have explored how treatment providers practice their trade in this new court organization. I investigate how case management professionals, working at the intersections of the social welfare and criminal justice systems, leverage courtroom decision making that results in greater leniency or enhanced punishment. The findings suggest that mental‐health‐court case managers act as boundary spanners in terms of their strategic use of resources to facilitate treatment goals. I conclude that case managers act as “double agents” challenging the state to advocate for clemency while enforcing client rules to uphold the integrity of the court.

Problem-Solving Courts and the Criminal Justice System

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
David DeMatteo ◽  
Kirk Heilbrun ◽  
Shelby Arnold ◽  
Alice Thornewill
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Behavioral Health ◽  
Criminal Behavior ◽  
Justice System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Team Approach ◽  
Problem Solving Courts

Individuals with behavioral health disorders are significantly overrepresented in the criminal justice system. The incarceration of offenders with substance use disorders and mental illness has contributed to dramatic growth in the incarcerated population in the United States. Problem-solving courts provide judicially supervised treatment for behavioral health needs commonly found among offenders, including substance abuse and mental health, and they treat a variety of offender populations. By addressing the problems that underlie criminal behavior, problem-solving courts seek to decrease the “revolving door” that results when offender needs are not addressed. Problem-solving courts use a team approach among the judge, defense attorney, prosecutor, and treatment providers, which is a paradigm shift in how the justice system treats offenders with special needs. Offenders in problem-solving courts are held accountable for their behavior while being provided with judicially supervised treatment designed to reduce the risk of reoffending. Despite the proliferation of problem-solving courts, there are unanswered questions about how they function, how effective they are, and the most promising ways to implement problem-solving justice. Problem-Solving Courts and the Criminal Justice System is the first book to focus broadly on problem-solving courts. The changing landscape of the criminal justice system, recent development of problem-solving courts, and ongoing shift toward offender rehabilitation underscore the need for this book. This book provides those in the fields of mental health, criminal justice, law, and related fields with a comprehensive foundation of information related to the role of problem-solving courts in reforming the criminal justice system. This book also provides researchers, academics, administrators, and policy-makers with an overview of the existing research on problem-solving courts, including the challenges faced by researchers when examining these courts.

Methodological Challenges in Researching Problem-Solving Courts

2019 ◽  
pp. 157-170
Author(s):  
David DeMatteo ◽  
Kirk Heilbrun ◽  
Alice Thornewill ◽  
Shelby Arnold
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
Empirical Research ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Drug Courts ◽  
Criminal Recidivism ◽  
Random Assignment ◽  
Mental Health Courts ◽  
Methodological Challenges ◽  
Problem Solving Courts

This chapter discusses the methodological challenges faced by researchers attempting to study the operations and effectiveness of problem-solving courts. Although researchers have conducted a great deal of research on drug courts, and research on mental health courts is continuing to grow, there is relatively little research on all other types of problem-solving courts. This chapter discusses the current research landscape and describes how research on these courts can be challenging for a variety of ethical and logistical reasons. Specifically, this chapter highlights the difficulties associated with conducting valid empirical research on problem-solving courts, including an overview of difficulties with random assignment, skewed samples, outcome measures, and jurisdictional differences. The authors also discuss the disconnect between indicators of progress used in some problem-solving courts and reductions in criminal recidivism.

A Path to Restorative Justice: Applicability of Mental Health Courts in the Philippines

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 205-219
Author(s):  
Daniel Alberto G. Guinigundo
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
Social Systems ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Philippines ◽  
Mental Illnesses ◽  
Policy Framework ◽  
Mental Health Courts ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
The Public

Described as ‘situated at the intersection of the criminal justice, mental health, substance abuse treatment, and other social systems’ 2 , Mental Health Courts (MHCs) are courts that deal with specialized interventions for defendants with mental illness. Aside from presenting options other than incarceration, they provide a distinct avenue for collaboration between the public and private sectors in developing mechanisms to address law and policy concerns regarding prisoner mental health. Originating from the United States, MHCs offer an innovative and targeted response to the current Philippine situation. While the recent passage of the Mental Health Act by Congress in 2018 has brought the fatality of mental illnesses and disorders to the fore, several gaps remain unaddressed. This article seeks to rectify the existing lacunae in the legal and policy framework by proposing the establishment of MHCs in the country. This shall be undertaken in five phases: First, to justify the needed reform, data must be gathered to determine the number of inmates suffering from a mental illness; second, the enactment or revision of mental health legislation and court rules; third, craft strategic plans to address budgetary concerns, which shall be done through the Philippine Council for Mental Health, as the mandated regulatory agency; fourth, forge linkages with the public and private sectors to increase awareness through advocacy while equipping judges and concerned personnel through a series of trainings; and fifth, conduct pilot testing in certain courts and periodic evaluations to ensure sustainability.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document