The recovery paradigm is a widely accepted strength-based approach in general mental health care. Particular challenges arise when applying this paradigm in a forensic context. To address these issues, the present study examined recovery based on first-person narratives of offenders formerly labeled as not criminally responsible of whom the judicial measure was abrogated. Eleven in-depth interviews were conducted to obtain information on lived experiences and recovery resources of this hard-to-reach and understudied population. The interviews focused on recovery and elements that indicated a sense of progress in life. Key themes were derived from the collected data. Descriptions of recovery resources followed recurrent themes, including clinical, functional, social, and personal resources. Participants also reported ambiguous experiences related to features of the judicial trajectory. This was defined as forensic recovery and can be seen as an additional mechanism, besides more established recovery dimensions, that is unique to mentally ill offenders.

Objective: Connectedness is placed at the heart of the recovery process in mental health care. However, in regard to persons labeled not criminally responsible (NCR), considerations of recovery and connectedness remain in the background. The aim of this study is to understand and explore how individuals labeled not criminally responsible experience connectedness. Research method:Sixty-seven in-depth interviews were examined and thematically analyzed. Results: Interviews revealed emotional, functional and personal connectedness as categories of connectedness, each with different qualitative determinants. Conclusion:This study shows that connectedness should be considered as an essential ingredient of the recovery process by practitioners as well as policy makers. We recommend a shift from an individualistic, punitive approach toward a recovery-supportive rhetoric and more 'shared decision making' between service users and providers at all levels.

No abstract

BackgroundRecovery is a widely accepted paradigm in mental health care, whilst the correctional and forensic–psychiatric field is still searching for foundations for its implementation. Knowledge regarding recovery of persons with intellectual disabilities in secure contexts is limited. This study assesses recovery needs and resources among persons with intellectual disabilities labelled not criminally responsible and investigates the impact of the judicial label on recovery processes.MethodsA sample of 26 individuals was composed purposively, and in‐depth interviews were conducted. Recurrent themes were identified using thematic analysis.ResultsTraditional recovery themes emerged from the narratives, next to aspects of recovery in a forensic or correctional context. However, the operationalization and proportional impact are specific for this sample.ConclusionsThe social dimension overarches all other recovery dimensions. The integration of an explicit social rhetoric is imperative, including contextual, relational, interactional and societal dimensions. This offers pathways to reverse the traditional, paternalistic model of exclusion and classification.

Research on recovery in forensic contexts is scant, particularly research grounded in lived experiences of persons labeled Not Criminally Responsible. Available studies primarily focus on barriers to recovery in this context rather than the recovery process itself. This chapter fills this void, starting with a brief description of persons labeled Not Criminally Responsible. It then summarizes and discusses the overall findings of a qualitative study concerning the lived experiences of persons labeled Not Criminally Responsible and provides a comprehensive perspective on recovery, as well as recommendations for future practices. Theoretical Background Not Criminally Responsible: Security and Treatment IntertwinedPersons with mental illness or disabilities are entitled to support and assistance based on international standards e.g., access to services and inclusion in the community (UN 2006; WHO 2013). However, when these individuals commit an offense, they instantly become part of a dual discourse (Adshead and Sarkar 2005 ; Niveau and Welle 2018 ; Ward 2014 ). The prevailing approach is not to convict these people because of their psychiatric, cognitive or developmental condition and thus not to hold them responsible for their actions. On the other hand, they are seen as a danger to society, which leads to their confinement and exclusion, aimed at protecting society. Faced with this dichotomy, most criminal justice systems give priority to the latter approach, in which "dangerousness" and "protection of society" justify legal interventions (Brown and Pratt 2000 ; Lamb et al.1999 ). Consequently, these persons are legally labeled "not criminally responsible"