The second generation of mental health courts.

Redlich, Allison D.; Steadman, Henry J.; Monahan, John; Petrila, John; Griffin, Patricia A.

doi:10.1037/1076-8971.11.4.527

Cited by 97 publications

(96 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The mitigation of violence risk observed in this study may be more detectable in courts with eligibility criteria that allow for consideration of higher-risk arrestees, compared with MHCs that limit access to persons charged with nonviolent misdemeanors. The practice of not excluding potential participants with a history of felony offenses and previous violence is consistent with a trend in the "second generation" of MHCs to accept a broader array of justiceinvolved persons with mental disorders (7,9). Moreover, this practice is consistent with principles suggested by metaanalyses of the correctional literature that targeting intensive services to the needs of offenders at higher risk of recidivism yields more demonstrably effective interventions in reducing recidivism (39).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 66%

“…Participants attend status hearings, in which the judge may apply various rewards and sanctions to encourage adherence to the treatment plan. Participants who maintain a sustained period of stability graduate from the MHC program (9).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Existing data suggest that MHC participation can reduce risk of criminal recidivism (11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16), although not all studies support that conclusion (17,18). Little research has investigated the effectiveness of MHCs specifically for reducing risk of violence, a gap in the literature that may be related to the fact that early MHCs typically were restricted to persons charged with nonviolent misdemeanors (9,17). Because the number of MHCs that include individuals with PS in Advance ps.psychiatryonline.org 1 histories of felony charges or violence is expanding (9), research is needed on whether courts that accept higher-risk clients can operate without compromising public safety.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Little research has investigated the effectiveness of MHCs specifically for reducing risk of violence, a gap in the literature that may be related to the fact that early MHCs typically were restricted to persons charged with nonviolent misdemeanors (9,17). Because the number of MHCs that include individuals with PS in Advance ps.psychiatryonline.org 1 histories of felony charges or violence is expanding (9), research is needed on whether courts that accept higher-risk clients can operate without compromising public safety. One study directly examined the effectiveness of an MHC with higher-risk clients in reducing risk of violence by using a retrospective observational design.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Prospective Study of Violence Risk Reduction by a Mental Health Court

McNiel¹,

Sadeh²,

Delucchi³

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 66%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Prospective Study of Violence Risk Reduction by a Mental Health Court

McNiel¹,

Sadeh²,

Delucchi³

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Ces programmes se basent sur le principe de la jurisprudence thérapeutique (Hartford et al, 2004 ;Pound, 1942 ;Redlich et al, 2005 ;Schneider et al, 2007 ;Wexler, 1996 ;Wexler et Winick, 1992). Selon ce principe, la loi devrait être administrée et appliquée en tenant compte des causes sous-jacentes ayant contribué au contact de ces personnes avec la justice.…”

Section: Jurisprudence Thérapeutique Et Programmes De Déjudiciarisationunclassified

Les Tribunaux de santé mentale : déjudiciarisation et jurisprudence thérapeutique

Jaimes

Crocker

Bédard

2010

smq

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Au Québec comme ailleurs en Amérique, la désinstitutionalisation, le manque de ressources et de services communautaires de santé mentale de même que les changements législatifs ont contribué à une augmentation des probabilités que des personnes atteintes de troubles de santé mentale aient des démêlés avec la justice. Les Tribunaux de santé mentale constituent une forme de déjudiciarisation, basée sur des principes de jurisprudence thérapeutique, qui prend forme au coeur des activités de la Cour. Cet article présente une synthèse critique de la littérature scientifique sur le sujet. Les auteurs exposent d’abord le contexte psycho-légal dans lequel ont émergé les Tribunaux de santé mentale puis décrivent le fonctionnement et les objectifs de ces entités judiciaires. L’article décrit ensuite le Plan d’Accompagnement Justice et Santé Mentale (PAJ-SM), le premier projet pilote de tribunal de santé mentale à Montréal, et le premier en son genre au Québec. On examine ensuite les études d’efficacité de ces institutions et les enjeux des programmes de déjudiciarisation. Les défis et les limites inhérents aux tribunaux spécialisés et la recherche qui les concerne sont discutés, ainsi que certaines alternatives tant au niveau de l’intervention que des méthodes de recherche. Les auteurs concluent que si les Tribunaux de santé mentale offrent des pistes prometteuses, ils ne constituent pas une panacée aux problèmes complexes situés à l’interface de la santé mentale et de la justice. Ces initiatives ne devraient pas occulter les autres mesures de déjudiciarisation en amont, ni la question centrale de l’accès aux services de santé mentale et de leur adéquation aux besoins des diverses clientèles.

show abstract

Capacity to Stand Trial

Finch

2009

Wiley Encyclopedia of Forensic Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The legal construct of competency to stand trial requires that a defendant has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and a rational as well as factual understanding of the legal proceedings against him. The trier of fact (usually a judge) is responsible for interpreting what capacities are sufficient to meet the legal standard of trial competency. Mental health experts who assist the court in establishing whether or not a defendant is competent to proceed are in a position to explain how mental health issues factor in to a defendant's capacities in relation to the relevant legal concepts. There are three primary capacities that are relevant to a defendant's trial competency: general capacity, decisional capacity, and particular capacities in reference to a defendant's specific case. General capacities speak to a defendant's intrinsic abilities, including his level of psychiatric, intellectual, cognitive, and interpersonal functioning. Decisional capacities consider the manner in which a defendant makes everyday decisions and how this may impact his conceptualization of his case, the rationality of his legal decisions, and his ability to work with his attorney. Particular capacities speak to the unique elements of a defendant's legal case, requiring a direct analysis of relevant case facts and how these may interact with the defendant's mental status. Defendants who are found by the court to be incompetent to stand trial may be referred for competency restoration treatment, depending upon the guidelines of the particular jurisdiction. If treatment with psychiatric medications is required, a judicial hearing may be held to determine whether this treatment will meet established criterion to authorize involuntary treatment. Legal standards for competency to stand trial are the same as competency to be sentenced, to plead guilty, to waive an insanity defense, to waive privilege, to waive the right to counsel, and to be executed as each speaks to decisional capacities specific to a defendant's case. The decision to proceed pro se (represent self) also must be made voluntarily and intelligently.

show abstract

The second generation of mental health courts.

Abstract: Improving responses to people with mental illness: The essential elements of a mental health court. CSG & BJS. Young, D. (2002). Impacts of perceived legal pressure on retention in drug treatment.

Cited by 97 publications

References 7 publications

Prospective Study of Violence Risk Reduction by a Mental Health Court

Prospective Study of Violence Risk Reduction by a Mental Health Court

Les Tribunaux de santé mentale : déjudiciarisation et jurisprudence thérapeutique

Capacity to Stand Trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About