Matching Items (3)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Mental Health
Description
It is a tragic reality that many individuals in the criminal justice system suffer from a mental illness. As a result, both mental health programs and mental health courts have been developed in response to the increasing number of individuals in the criminal justice system that are suffering from a mental illness. The first objective of this review is to discuss the background on mental illness as it relates to the criminal justice population, and to understand the common causes of incarceration amongst the mentally ill, including the deinstitutionalization movement of the 1960s, the unavailability of intermediate and long-term hospitalization in state hospitals, more formal and rigid criteria for civil commitment, a lack of adequate support systems and access to mental health treatment in the community, and the high recidivism rates by these types of offenders. Considering these causes, another objective of this review is to compare and contrast the United States' first mental health courts, including those in Broward County, Florida, King County, Washington, San Bernardino, California, and Anchorage, Alaska, by ultimately focusing on the origins of each court, the stages of intervention, methods of entry, competency evaluations, treatment approaches, and disposition of charges. From there, this review considers the differences between the courts and proceeds with a synthesis of the common and recurring themes between them, and then ends with recommendations specific to the mental health court system on practices that can be implemented or altered in order to encourage a more effective form of justice for the mentally ill, and a discussion of the policy solutions that have already been proposed to address the problem.
ContributorsReynolds, Dylan Marie (Author) / Johnson, Eric (Thesis director) / Fradella, Hank (Committee member) / School of Criminology and Criminal Justice (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2018-05
Description
By providing vignettes with manipulated scientific evidence, this research examined if including more or less scientific detail affected decision-making in regards to the death penalty. Participants were randomly assigned one of the two manipulations (less science and more science) after reading a short scenario introducing the mock capital trial and their role as jury members. Survey respondents were told that a jury had previously found the defendant guilty and they would now deliberate the appropriate punishment. Before being exposed to the manipulation, respondents answered questions pertaining to their prior belief in the death penalty, as well as their level of support of procedural justice and science. These questions provided a baseline to compare to their sentencing decision. Participants were then asked what sentence they would impose \u2014 life in prison or death \u2014 and how the fMRI evidence presented by an expert witness for the defense affected their decision. Both quantitative and qualitative measures were used to identify how the level of scientific detail affected their decision. Our intended predictor variable (level of scientific detail) did not affect juror decision-making. In fact, the qualitative results revealed a variety of interpretations of the scientific evidence used both in favor of death and in favor of life. When looking at what did predict juror decision-making, gender, prior belief in the death penalty, and political ideology all were significant predictors. As in previous literature, the fMRI evidence in our study had mixed results with regards to implementation of the death penalty. This held true in both of our manipulations, showing that despite the level of detail in evidence intended for mitigation, jurors with preconceived notions may still disregard the evidence, and some jurors may even view it is aggravating and thus increase the likelihood of a death sentence for a defendant with such brain abnormalities.
ContributorsBerry, Megan Cheyenne (Author) / Fradella, Hank (Thesis director) / Pardini, Dustin (Committee member) / Department of Psychology (Contributor) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-12
Description
This study examined whether periods of secure confinement in juvenile detention, jails, and prisons are associated with short- and longer-term increases in adolescent males’ internalizing problems during adolescence and young adulthood. Data came from a longitudinal community sample of 506 male adolescents who were assessed every six months for three years and annually for ten subsequent years. At each assessment, participants reported on their confinement experiences and internalizing problems (i.e., anxiety, depression) during the recall period. Fixed-effects models examined within-individual changes in internalizing problems before, during, and after youth reported any overnight stay in a correctional facility, after controlling for the time-varying confounds of externalizing problem behaviors and previous justice system contact. Additionally, this study tested whether changes in the participants’ internalizing problems varied depending on the confinement facility (i.e., juvenile detention, jail, prison). Overall, results indicated that internalizing problems increased during periods where participants had been confined in a facility. In contrast, there were no changes in internalizing problems in the period prior to confinement and internalizing problems returned to baseline levels in the year following confinement. Facility-specific analyses indicated confinement in prison was associated with the largest increase in internalizing problems. Findings from this study indicate confinement does influence internalizing problems and interventions sensitive to internalizing problems should focus on providing services during confinement and immediate reentry period.
ContributorsTom, Kelsey E (Author) / Pardini, Dustin (Thesis advisor) / Sweeten, Gary (Committee member) / Wright, Kevin (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2020