- Background
Mental health courts are a recent, and rapidly expanding phenomena. In the late 1990s, only a few such courts were accepting cases. Since then, some 90 others have been established or are in planning stages. One of the first documented uses of the term "mental health court" is found in the description a specialized court docket developed in Broward County, Florida, in 1997, which was "created to stop the revolving door that causes mentally ill people to spin in and out of the criminal justice system.
- Variability of Models
The little commentary that exists on these courts tends to emphasize their differences. As one researcher noted in 2001, "any similarities among current mental health courts occur more or less by chance at the implementation level and stem mostly from mirror-imaging by new jurisdictions seeking to replicate recently visited mental health courts or to duplicate drug courts."
This variability is indisputable. On matters such as what kinds of mental health diagnoses and criminal charges a court will accept, what kind of plea a participant can enter, how the court will monitor treatment, and many others, each mental health court has a different set of policies.
- Common Features
Despite their differences, some commonalities have emerged. In general, mental health court practitioners, policymakers, and researchers use the term mental health court to describe a specialized court docket for defendants with mental illness, which employs a process distinct from customary court proceedings. These courts eschew the traditional adversarial system in favor of a therapeutic model, wherein defendants are offered the opportunity to participate in court-supervised treatment in lieu of typical criminal sanctions. The court judge, with the aid of collaborating court personnel and treatment providers, defines terms of participation, and defendants return periodically for status assessments. When a defendant successfully completes the, their case is resolved (sometimes dismissed). Defendants who do not successfully complete the plan typically have their cases returned to the regular court.
- Why Do Jurisdictions Establish Mental Health Courts?
There is also some consistency in the impetus that communities cite for starting a mental health court. In general, communities considering or operating mental health courts seek one or more of the following outcomes:
- Increased Public Safety by reducing future criminal activity and lowering the high recidivism rates for people with mental illness who become involved in the justice system.
- Improved Quality of Life for People with Mental Illness by ensuring that people with mental illness and co-occurring substance abuse disorders who are involved in the justice system are connected to effective community-based treatments and supports that help to encourage recovery.
- More Efficient Use of Overtaxed Criminal Justice Resources by reducing repeated contacts between law enforcement and people with mental illness, streamlining court processing for defendants with mental illness, and making available jail and prison cells for dangerous felons.
- Decreased Expenditures by providing treatment to people with mental illness in the community, where it is considerably more cost effective than in correctional institutions, without jeopardizing public safety.
- Looking Ahead
The spread of mental health courts or mental health dockets is likely to continue. Although all mental health courts may not fit every aspect of the above description or share all of the above goals, they still have much in common. And while these emerging similarities help to answer the question of what a mental health court is (or at least how the term is currently used), it does not address the question of what a mental health court should be.
To date, little empirical evidence exists about the effectiveness of the different structures and processes that mental health courts employ. Neither is there information available that draws on the experiences of mental health courts from across the country about the key issues that they considered when planning and implementing their program. Though some research is currently planned and underway, in the short term, the development of mental health courts will continue to be guided by collaborative efforts within local jurisdictions, and the definition of what constitutes a mental health court will continue to evolve.
|
|
|