Treatment rights in uncertain legal times.

Abstract

In this chapter we address what has become a challenging area of law-the standards that govern the treatment of "special needs" of vulnerable criminal offenders. The challenging nature of the topic stems largely from the fact that applicable legal doctrines are often contradictory and operate at cross-purposes with one another. These core contradictions are simple to articulate but difficult to resolve. On the one hand, the special needs of offenders ostensibly entitle them to enhanced services and treatment while incarcerated. These same needs also make the prisoners uniquely vulnerable to the potential pains of incarceration that, in turn, theoretically afford them greater claim to special protections. On the other hand, in a political climate in which correctional agencies focus more on delivering punishment than providing services, these claims can take on problematic significance. Special needs and heightened vulnerability may mean that offenders are less able to conform their conduct to the requirements of the institution, resulting in their exclusion from already limited programs and subjecting them to increased punishment. Rather than more treatment, they may get less than other offenders and little of what they need.Another contradiction affecting offenders with special needs is that contemporary criminal justice thinking still emphasizes punishment over rehabilitation, and there 51

“Madness” and penal confinement: Some observations on mental illness and prison pain

“…With these things in mind, within the range of estimates based entirely on data sources coming from U.S. correctional systems themselves, those from California may be among the most reliable. This is because the groundwork for the litigation that resulted in the United States Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Brown v. Plata (2011) began decades ago, when the state legislature funded an especially careful system-wide study—a proactive, direct assessment with a representative sample of prisoners—intended to more accurately estimate the number of mentally ill prisoners who were housed in California’s prisons (Haney and Specter, 2001). When researchers returned with estimates that were not only significantly greater than had been previously thought but also far in excess of the prison system’s capacity to address the needs of this population, statewide litigation over unconstitutional levels of care soon followed (see Coleman v. Gomez , 1995).…”

“…I have necessarily focused over the years on the plight of the mentally ill in prison and on the nature and quality of mental health care provided in various prisons and prison systems (e.g. Haney, 2006; Haney and Specter, 2001). The reason for this specialized focus is perhaps all too obvious.…”