: Trends in the Use of Pretrial Diversion Agreements and Corporate Monitors

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Asaf Eckstein
Keyword(s):  
CNS Spectrums ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 136-144
Author(s):  
Jonathan M. Meyer

Outpatient diversion programs present an opportunity for severely mentally ill defendants to receive psychiatric treatment and have alleged offenses dismissed by the court. Moreover, the successful completion of pretrial diversion is associated with fewer post-program arrest and jail days. The target patient population for such programs is typically people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders, but the care of such patients in outpatient settings presents challenges for monitoring treatment fidelity, specifically antipsychotic adherence, as low adherence rates are associated with increased rates of recidivism. Presented here is a review of evidence-based strategies that must be employed to track antipsychotic adherence in outpatient diversion programs, including pill counts, use of long-acting injectable antipsychotics, and determination of plasma antipsychotic levels to assess adherence and the adequacy of antipsychotic treatment. Antipsychotic therapy remains the foundation of schizophrenia treatment, but only through the use of all available modalities can clinicians maximize the odds that schizophrenia patients in pretrial diversion maintain psychiatric stability and successfully complete mental health court mandates.


2019 ◽  
pp. 651-664
Author(s):  
Andrew Boutros

Companies—especially publicly traded companies—do not want to go to trial in criminal cases. In fact, they do not want to be indicted at all. Indictment, let alone trial, can have serious consequences. With the dramatic increase in corporate criminal prosecutions over the last two decades, a fourth option has emerged in the corporate criminal arena: deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs) and nonprosecution agreements (NPAs), which are alternatives to the traditional “guilty” or “not guilty” approach that the law has generally taken to charged crimes. Collectively, these agreements are known as corporate pretrial diversion agreements. Whether the government elects to use one of these agreements depends on multiple factors.


1979 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 503-508 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald Roesch

This article is a response to Gottheil's criticism of an earlier article by the author, in which it was suggested that most criminal justice programs have not been effectively evaluated. This problem was discussed in the context of a pretrial diversion program in Illinois. Gottheil offered several criticisms of the author's assessment of reasons for a nonexperimental attitude on the part of program personnel, and also criticized the author's suggestions for a research methodology for future evaluations. In this article, the author responds to these criticisms and, in particular, points to some of the problems that might arise when policy implications are drawn from methodologically unsound evaluations.


1988 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-202
Author(s):  
William Matthews
Keyword(s):  

1988 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-202
Author(s):  
William G. Matthews
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document