The Due Process In Civil Commitment Procedure

Individuals with a mental illness enter a mental health court as it reduces the number of clients with mental illnesses in the criminal justice system, reduces stigma and stereotypical judgement in court, and reduces the number of clients with mental illnesses in prisons and jails. Although the judge does sentence the client, the client does still retain rights: The right to refuse treatments, the right to proper care and documentation, the right to be informed of all available medical treatments, and most importantly, the right to be treated with dignity as a human being. The court demonstrated that the client’s rights were addressed by offering the client the opportunity to voice his concerns, and by acknowledging his views on his condition. Even though the client did not think he needed help, the nurse and case manager were concerned about his hallucination, eating patterns, and lack of stability. They did not believe that an outpatient setting would work for this client as he was not stable, did not have clear insight, and retained a lack of resources. Barrier to care, for the mental health in general, include: lack of resource, knowledge deficits, stigma, financial barriers, and lack of mental health care professionals. Overall, this experience offered me to opportunity to perceive how a Mental Health Court functions and differs from the traditional court room, in relation to client goals,

Involuntary commitment or civil commitment is a legal process through which an individual with symptoms of severe mental illness is court-ordered into treatment in

The impacts of DeShaney v. Winnebago are used in cases of psychiatric patients and many other child abuse cases. In the context of psychiatric patients, two Supreme Court cases lead the legal precedent on how psychiatric cases are followed through: The case of Youngberg v. Romeo, which held that the government takes on affirmative duties in involuntarily confining a mental health patient, and also the case of DeShaney v. Winnebago, which lessened the range of affirmative duties given to the government (Hagan 735). Although DeShaney v. Winnebago protected social workers, it also created a more difficult space for child abuse cases to actually be carried out. For example, Jessica Gonzales tried to steer around the DeShaney v. Winnebago case when her husband murdered their three kids despite Jessica’s multiple reports of his

The deinstitutionalization of state mental hospitals has left many individuals untreated and in the community where there come under police scrutiny due to their odd behavior, that is a manifestation of their illness. Majority of mentally ill offenders have not committed a serious crime and are subjected to inappropriate arrest and incarceration (Soderstrom, 2008). This new policy has become quite a concern to the fact that the correctional environment has proven to show no positive results in the mental health of the offender during their time of incarceration or upon their release date and thereafter (Soderstrom, 2008).

A lack of infrastructure and monitoring in correctional institutions leaves the public unaware of the aforementioned human rights violation of individuals diagnosed with mental health disorders (Mfoafo-M’Carthy and Huls 2014). In the case of Ashley smith, she was often confined for long periods of time without appropriate cause and were then subjected to conditions that included violence, substandard nutrition and cleanliness, torment, unconsented medical treatment, loss of dignity, and sedation as a control method. In addition, her diagnosis of personality disorder was used against her because she did not conform to the dominant cultural, moral, and religious standards of society.

Ultimately, involuntary commitment remains a complicated medically and ethically debated topic; one that creates a conflict and clear divide, between individuals who content that involuntary commitment results in vulnerable individuals with psychiatric illnesses being subjective to coercion and civil rights infringement, and those who believe, based on the principle of utility, that involuntary commitment is essential and integral to the safety of the those with psychiatric illnesses, as well as to society as a whole. Both sides offer empirical evidence, as well as moral support for why they believe involuntary commitment is either legally and morally acceptable, or ethically unacceptable, and thereby should be illegal. Regardless, infringing

I agree. I think it is very important for us to determine if the person is a danger to themselves or society because if the person is inaccurately evaluated, then it can have horrible consequences. In order to properly evaluate them, I believe the person should be given certain neurological tests by medical staff. And I think they should undergo a trial period to determine if they have overcome their psychotic break. Furthermore, I agree that most families now in days are constantly on the move doing something, so it is very important to determine whether the person needs someone by their side constantly. If that is the case, then I believe the person should either hire a medical professional or remained hospitalized, so they

They say that the prisoner’s behavior needs to be monitored before release, and the likelihood of them not being able to support themselves outside of prison in terms of treatment. Our community and environment is part of what makes us who we are. When releasing these inmates with schizophrenia their environment needs to be looked at to see how successful will this person be outside of prison. They need to have a strong support to make sure they are taking their drugs or other forms of treatment continue. If these inmates are released into a toxic environment it is likely they will fall back into the schizophrenic tendencies and possibly end up back in jail. These ex-inmates need to be able to asses themselves as well outside of prison, so they can go get the help they need. If the individual has little self-awareness they cannot even realize they are getting worse and just continue like everything is normal, and end up falling back into their old

Given the number of incarcerated inmates who suffer from some form of mental illness, there are growing concerns and questions in the medical field about treatment of the mentally ill in the prison system. When a person with a mental illness commits a crime or break the law, they are immediately taken to jail or sent off to prison instead of being evaluated and placed in a hospital or other mental health facility. “I have always wondered if the number of mentally ill inmates increased since deinstitutionalization” Since prison main focus is on the crimes inmates are incarcerated; the actual treatment needed for the mentally ill is secondary. Mentally ill prisoners on the surface may appear to be just difficult inmates depending on the

The theory of ‘deinstitutionalization’ began arising with the theory of providing more freedom to the mentally ill and less spending on full time care facilities. The widespread use of drugs to control the mentally ill in the 1900s led to a mass release of patients and an emptying of asylums. Outpatient Psychiatric Clinics were established. Case Law in the United States began to be generated to provide the mentally ill with greater rights. Shelton v. Tucker 1960 provided that the mentally ill should receive care in the “least restrictive alternative”, which is a practice still utilized. O’Connor v. Donaldson 1975 ruled that non-dangerous mental patients have the right to be treated or discharged if they have been institutionalized against their will. This new approached permitted the mass exodus

The incarceration of those who are mentally ill is on the continual rise. Many states juggle with the decision of placing offenders in Mental Hospital or locating them in State Prisons. Latessa and Holsinger (2011) discuss two major reasons for the increase of those with mental illness within the prison system. First, many states have no longer allow for the insanity plea during criminal trials, thus those who suffer from mental illness are not required to receive mandatory mental treatment. This is due to the discomforting idea that criminal offenders should not be given the same living conditions as those whom are patients of mental wards. Secondly, longer sentences have created a surplus of mentally ill offenders needing treatment. Soderstrom (2007) added that the lack of mental health support systems in

Should their client be held in a federal prison or in a mental institution. There are many factors that cause the problem like there are not many insane asylums for where their client could be helped. Additionally, the mental asylums that are available likely have a long waiting list. Also, when they are put into an insane asylum there is a possibility that they will not be let out to walk the streets freely ever again. So, the pleading insanity charge does carry the burden of will they be in a position to pay the time for their crime forever in the least harsh environment, or they could be held in prison for a couple of years. Another factor that comes into account is when their insanity plead does go through they may not be housed in a mental institution soon. Research done by Northwestern University shows most of the youth and adults charged with life in a mental institution get incarcerated in a federal prison multiple times before they are moved into an insane asylum. Statistics show the people that are believed insane have been charged by the government with at least 11 different offenses, so that they are not roaming the streets being in a position to cause harm to others. Furthermore, there is also not enough funding for more mental institutions to open up, or for the patients to receive more care. The reason for that the government already spends 5.95 billion

Treatments are provided for the inmate’s best interest and what may improve their mental and physical health, even though mentally ill inmates have their rights in denying treatment they

Despite the fact that my parents have worked in the criminal justice system for many years, I have never given much thought to the treatment of prisoners. As we learned from the readings, the current state of the United States criminal justice system is imperfect to the point of cruelty to those involved in it. This is truer for individuals with a mental illness. Due to a lack of psychiatric facilities throughout Alabama and overcrowding of those that do exist, many criminal offenders with mental illnesses are sent to prisons instead. State prisons are currently overcrowded, leading to substandard conditions such in almost every aspect.

The United States criminal justice system has been continuously increasing incarceration among individuals who suffer from a sever mental illness. As of 2007 individuals with severe mental illness were over twice as likely to be found in prisons than in society (National Commission of Correctional Health Care, 2002, as cited in Litschge &Vaughn, 2009). The offenses that lead to their commitment in a criminal facility, in the majority of cases, derive from symptoms of their mental illness instead of deviant behavior. Our criminal justice system is failing those who would benefit more from the care of a psychiatric rehabilitation facility or psychiatric hospital by placing them in correctional facilities or prisons.