In the recent past, the number of mentally ill people taking part in the criminal justice system has been increasing. People with mental illness are convoluted in the criminal justice system for several reasons since they cannot control their situations. Providing services to this community enhance fairness and equity in society.
Most of the providers have been serving the affected individuals for quite some time and have gained immense experience in the field. Consequently, many people with criminal records enter mental health services system through referral ways such as crisis services, social services departments, human services agencies, educational programs, families, and individual-referrals (Cole & Smith, 2010).
Majority of mentally ill persons referred from courts, probation departments, and jails are not necessarily dangerous or violent. This implies that their participation in the criminal justice system may signal a higher serious illness or immediate attention for comprehensives services.
Also, such individuals have similar needs as other individuals with mental illness on the current case records (Sales, 2007). For this reason, providing services to this group does not interfere with serving other criminals, and may curb future arrest or incarceration.
The integration of mental health service providers in the criminal justice system addresses the needs of people with mental illness. Such a relationship of the groups enhances communication and coordination of the issues affecting the mentally ill individuals.
Furthermore, providers need clarifications towards the types of information that can or should be made available within the criminal justice system. At the same time, the manner of conquering the challenges and obstacles interwoven in mental health and criminal justice services are addressed.
Criminal justice system involvement in the issue is attributed to the stigma of mental illness and the degree of transparency in service delivery systems. For instance, the chances of arresting mentally ill persons are higher due to their deeds and conditions.
On the other hand, many individuals with mental illness have no sources of funds, which may make them be detained because they cannot afford even minimal bails (Sales, 2007). Additionally, such people are not allowed to be released on personal recognizance.
Repeatedly, individuals with mental illness are usually charged with more serious crimes than their counterparts convicted with similar behavior. Moreover, people with mental illness are charged, convicted and sentenced severely in comparison to other individuals accused of the same crimes. Apart from that issue, persons with mental illness spend two to five times longer periods in jail than people implicated with no mental disorder (Cole & Smith, 2010).
At the time, innovative approaches have been constructed aimed at disrupting the cycle of arrest and re-arrest of persons with mental illness popularly referred to as criminalization of persons with mental illness. Police officers have been receiving training in the applicable treatment of persons with mental illness.
For instance, correctional services have developed programs for improved identifications, treatment and freeing of persons with mental illness. The courts have incorporated programs to channel persons with mental illness from the criminal justice systems into treatments. As such, community rehabilitation programs have been working with mental health providers to address the needs of people with mental disorders.
Despite the initiatives adopted, challenges have emanated in court-ordered treatment for persons with mental disability since they may have an opportunity to change incarceration through programs such as diversions and probations. When an individual is implicated with a criminal offense, the individual becomes a subject to the authority of the criminal justice system.
Measures such as probation and diversion are likely to be included as some form of treatment mandated or ordered, by a criminal court at various point in a criminal proceeding. Often, treatments mandated are usually diverse to factor in many options available. Therefore, the considerations made by a court will depend on the circumstances surrounding the individual.
Effective programs have also been designed to work actively in touching the treatment plans developed by health providers. The programs involve means of offering a treatment plan and designing a written crisis plan to the affected individuals. On the other hand, the plans of health care directives should reflect the individual treatment choice (Cole & Smith, 2010).
Victims’ rights movement has been formed for the legal protection of complainants and defendants in courts. Currently, almost every state has either passed laws or adopted constitutional amendments to assist victims in a criminal hearing. Initially, Wisconsin established a bill of rights for victims and provided funding for victim assistance programs.
This was followed by California, which borrowed the concepts developed in Wisconsin. Crime victims and victims’ rights organizations pushed for all states to work on protecting victims’ rights. Their main concern was that several victims were disregarded and to some extent mistreated by criminal justice systems since they only focused on the protection of the legal rights of defendants (Sales, 2007).
While it is true that victims’ bill of right differs from one state to the other, they all require that victims be treated with respect and fairness by police officers, prosecutors, and other officials. Also, the police officers should notify victims about the progress of their cases from the investigation stages to the time when the criminal will be released from prison. This will ensure that mentally ill individuals are treated fairly and reasonably.
References
Cole, G. F., & Smith, C. E. (2010). The American system of criminal justice (12th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Sales, B. D. (2007). The Criminal justice system. New York: Plenum Press.