Alternatives and Closing Remarks

Author(s):  
Thomas L. Hafemeister

The concluding chapter, Chapter 12, notes alternatives—such as diversion and mental health courts—to the commonly employed criminal justice proceedings that are being explored in the hope that they may be better suited for processing defendants with a mental disorder and thereby help to resolve some of the thorniest issues faced by the criminal justice system and society. It closes by reiterating the challenging nature of this field and stresses the important role that forensic mental health evaluators and their evaluations can play.

Author(s):  
Thomas L. Hafemeister

Chapter 2 presents an overview of forensic mental health assessments and their deployment within the criminal justice system. This chapter describes how forensic mental health assessments are conducted, the multiple steps taken in the course of these assessments, and the challenges and tensions associated with providing them within the criminal justice system. In addition, it delineates their distinctive nature and how they differ from clinical evaluations and mental health treatment. This chapter also discusses a key question that frequently arises in conjunction with these assessments, namely, distinguishing a genuine report of a mental disorder and its impact from malingering (i.e., the faking of an illness), and strategies for making this distinction.


2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 20-23
Author(s):  
Alexander Simmons

Mental health courts are designed to divert mentally ill offenders away from the criminal justice system and into appropriate treatment programs. This commentary highlights the systemic issues that led to the development of mental health courts as a solution. Research has already demonstrated that these courts are associated with numerous positive psychiatric and legal outcomes. However, further research is required to determine what specifically makes them successful, and who is most likely to benefit from them. Mental health courts have earned their place as an essential part of the criminal justice system and are a promising area of future research.


2003 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 6-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Risdon N. Slate

This article examines congressional testimony preceding the passage of legislation authorizing federal funds for mental health courts and makes the case for the importance of anecdotal evidence in the process. The magnitude of persons with mental illness in the criminal justice system is considered, as well as factors that have led to the criminalization of this population. The concept of therapeutic jurisprudence is discussed, and commonalities in the emergence of mental health courts and methods of supervision are examined. Areas of concern are addressed, and mental health courts are advocated as a commonsense approach to diverting persons with mental illness from the criminal justice system and ensuring linkages to treatment.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document