Suspect Mental Disorder and Police Use of Force

Abstract

It has been suggested that the police tend to respond to the unusual behaviors of mentally disordered individuals with coercive tactics that should be reserved for criminal offenders, such as arrest. Although recent research tested, and rejected, this perspective regarding arrest decisions, the present study investigated the most coercive form of police authority, the use of force. Using officer self-report data from two municipal law enforcement agencies, the present study investigated whether mentally disordered suspects were more likely than nondisordered suspects to receive physical force from the police. The findings revealed that mentally disordered suspects were significantly more likely to act violently, resist the police, and possess a weapon. After these characteristics were controlled, mentally disordered suspects were not more likely than nondisordered suspects to receive physical force.

Police Responses in Officer-Involved Violent Deaths: Comparison of Suicide by Cop and Non-Suicide by Cop Incidents

“…Even after controlling for resistance and possession of a weapon, persons who were judgmentally impaired were more likely to experience police use-of-force. On the contrary, Johnson (2012) found that police do not treat individuals with mental disorders more harshly, but people who are mentally unstable are significantly more likely to physically resist, assault officers, and possess a weapon. Therefore, officers are "influenced most by the violence threat and level of resistance they encounter" (p. 141).…”

“…The uncertainty officers often face after any use-of-force is magnified in SbC cases where subjects often are highly emotional or have mental illness (Johnson, 2012). Family members of the subjects and the public often judge the officers, questioning the need for them to use lethal force.…”

Use of Nonfatal Force on and by Persons With Apparent Mental Disorder in Encounters With Police

“…similarly, terrill's examinations (terrill, 2005;terrill & Mastrofski, 2002) of police-suspect encounters found that behavioral indications of mental impairment did not influence the severity of police use of force after controlling for suspect demeanor and substance intoxication. similarly, Johnson (2011) found that police reported using more severe levels of force on suspects who appeared "mentally unstable"; however, this relationship was not statistically significant after taking into account other pertinent factors including violent behavior and possession of weapons. it seems, therefore, that the use of more severe force on persons who appear mentally disordered is being justified because of more aggressive behavior being displayed during the encounter.…”

Police management of mental health crisis situations in the community: status quo, current gaps and future directions

“…Given the very complex nature of police encounters with people in mental health crisis (Clifford 2010), and statistically significant increased likelihood that police use more severe force on people who they perceive to be mentally ill (Johnson 2011, Kesic et al 2013b, police use of force guidelines clearly need more nuanced consideration (Bronitt and Gani 2012). To propose a more tailored approach to the de-escalation of mental health crisis encounters, we now consider the approach to de-escalation and limitsetting widely accepted as core business in inpatient mental health settings to discern if and how these core principles could be applied to, and help inform, the policing context.…”

“…Despite the lack of empirical support for its efficacy, there are a number of common techniques displayed by staff members that are considered to be central to effective de-escalation strategies. These include interpersonal skills, authentic engagement, calm and controlled communication, the ability to assess the initial situation, and demonstrating a collaborative approach to problem solving (Johnson andDelaney 2007, Finfgeld-Connett 2009). It is argued that the most common mistake made in such situations is for the staff member to lose their composure and act in an authoritarian or otherwise disbelieving way (Maier 1996).…”