The crisis may be among mentally disabled individuals and the other people in the community. The act illustrates the care to be given to the disadvantaged group. The civil rights for mentally ill patients are well explained and are required to be followed in reference the LPS act. The stated regulations are normally a judicial review that is used to settle disputes among the people in the society of California. The matters concerning involuntary commitment by the mentally ill persons have analyzed and steps or initiatives to be taken have been stated appropriately.
In the state of CA, California law (WIC 5150) allows police and certain other designated mental health professional to take an individual into custody if one or all of the following apply: 1) a danger to yourself, 2) a danger to other, and 3) gravely disabled. Gravely disabled refers to an individual who is not able to care for their basic needs and refuses necessary hospitalization. If any are present that person is taken to a psychiatric hospital for a 72-hour hold at which time they are evaluated. At the end of 72 hours three options are available they are: a) you (the individual) are released, b) you will be signed in as a voluntary patient, or c) you will have a 14 day involuntary hold. There is another type of civil commitment which is considered least restrictive because it is on an outpatient basis.
The 1800’s made steps towards equal opportunity and Civil rights, but laws had not fully established in comparison to today. Medical law makers quickly adopted the concept and between the 1960-1980’s large state-operating mental-health hospitals systematically dismantled. Problems generated, however when funding for the proposed community mental health centers was never implemented. (Reluctant Welfare State,
Introduction and Summary: Chapter 11 focuses on the individuals with mental illness and the criminal justice system. Every year there are hundreds of thousands of individuals with mental illness who are arrested. The past decade a lot of the state hospital and mental health facilities have been shut down for lack of funding. Many of the seriously mentally ill are roaming the streets. The serious mental illness regarding this chapter would include schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and severe depression.
Within those who oppose preventive commitment is Mental Health America who articulate on its position that "mandatory treatment has not been shown to add to the effectiveness of community mental health services and, indeed, may interfere with recovery by compromising personal responsibility and lowering self-esteem." (Mental Health America 2005) Similarly, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law calls outpatient commitment a "dangerous formalization of coercion" that "deters individuals from voluntarily seeking treatment" and is a "simplistic response that cannot compensate for a lack of appropriate and effective" community services. (Judge
et al. describes how deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill has unintentionally increased the number of individuals with mental illness that are incarcerated. They argue that interactions between police and the mentally ill have grown as mental health service facilities have been closed. The patients of these closed facilities have been sent out into society without suitable support. They
In this sense, it is obvious that the PIC system falls short of prioritizing and appropriately addressing incarcerated individuals' mental health needs. This failure has serious consequences since it can worsen underlying mental health difficulties and contribute to a recurrence cycle, undermining rehabilitation and public safety efforts. This is a critical issue that must be addressed to ensure the well-being and rehabilitation of individuals incarcerated. However, it does not hide the fact that PIC does not prioritize the mental health of inmates and provides the necessary resources. The article "Analyzing the Relationship between Mental Health Courts and the Prison Industrial Complex” by Helen Zhou and Elizabeth B. Ford, investigated how mental health courts intersect with and possibly support the prison industrial complex.
The article The Mentally Ill, Behind Bars discusses the happenings within the correctional system in New York of April 2014. Mayor Bill de Blasio and corrections commissioner Joseph Ponte were brought into New York City’s correctional centers that house mentally ill inmates, which make up roughly 40% of the total incarcerated population. This article pinpoints the three areas the city needs to focus on in order to improve the system for mentally ill inmates: the mental health of those incarcerated, Medicade enrollment before release back into society, and instilling programs for the mentally ill that will send them to a treatment facility rather than imprisoning them (The New York Times Editorial Board). The mentally ill in New York cost
How they are perceived, and their of lack ability to meet the expectations of society was interpreted as mental illness. Although they are all institutionalized for different reasons, the one they all have in common is society. McMurphy, for example, was admitted for being a “psychopath”, while others felt that they were not able to function and signed themselves up voluntarily. Consequently, society sets up expectations for what is viewed as normal. If these expectations are not met or if someone is different they walk the fine line of sanity vs.
Another issue that the American prison systems were facing was their constant practice of locking away mentally ill individuals to very long prison sentences that only seriously worsened their conditions, and even made their chances of overcoming mental illness, nearly impossible. Even medications that were prescribed to these individuals made them suffer serious and sometimes even worse, side effects. Although some states banned the high rates of mentally ill individuals to prisons, this only meant they were more targeted and thrown in jail for petty offenses by police. Many prisons do not have the resources, nor the skills needed to adequately and appropriately care for the mentally ill, therefore many of them suffer and even die from this
Also receiving the treatment within the jail will allow them to continue to practice safe habits when released rather than behaving criminally and impulsively bringing them back to prison. The National Alliance on Mental Illness believes that prisoners with mental health deserve access to quality mental health treatment. They give statistics to prove that mental illnesses within jails are a big problem and later provide links to what they have already done to help mentally ill prisoners in jails not receiving the treatment they need. The author believes, “People with mental illness who are incarcerated deserve access to appropriate mental health treatment, including screening, regular and timely access to mental health providers, and access to medications and programs that support recovery”(“Treatment While Incarcerated”). To be able to involve all of these different types of treatments, prisons first need to be able to include educated staff.
Introduction Prior to the mid-1960 virtually all mental health treatment was provided on an inpatient basis in hospitals and institutions. The Community Mental Health Act of 1963 was established with its primary focus on deinstitutionalizing mentally ill patients, and shutting down asylums in favor of community mental health centers. It was a major policy shift in mental health treatment that allowed patients to go home and live independently while receiving treatment, (Pollack & Feldman, 2003). As a result of the Act, there was a shift of mentally ill persons in custodial care in state institutions to an increase of the mentally ill receiving prosecutions in criminal courts.
80). They both argue that “deinstitutionalization became more of a cost-saving measure than a human rights initiative” and was the catalyst for the mass incarceration issue of mentally ill individuals (Etter et al 87). In contrast to the aforementioned authors, Kincaid does not look at deinstitutionalization as the cause of the incarceration of people who are mentally ill. Instead, the article focuses on how the current problem can be addressed. Kincaid states that mass incarceration of the mentally ill is not a direct result of the deinstitutionalization process but rather because ‘suitable treatment, alternative care, and community support’ is not made readily available and she offers a program that aims to combat the
More people get incarcerated for non-violent crimes and crimes caused by mental illnesses or drug abuse (Webb, 2009) and because these people get put in regular prisons, instead of in mental health facilities or facilities to help against drug addiction, where they could be treated to further prevent crimes driven by their illness (Webb, 2009), the prisons get overfilled and cannot hold the more ‘important’ prisoners that needed to be locked away from the public. A strong link of the criminal justice process is that the system tries to keep it fair for everyone. Every defendant has the right to an attorney so they can be defended properly and fairly and “Only judges who are adequately informed about a case can effectively control the proceedings and examine evidence” (Tochilovsky, 2002) It is also important for the criminal justice system that those involved show discretion and although this is not always the case, discretion by the judges, police, etc.
Introduction Civil Justice System The civil justice system exists in order to enable individuals, businesses, and local and central government to vindicate, and where necessary, enforce their civil legal rights and obligations, whether those rights are private or public. It ensures that the rights and protection of citizens are called for. The rule of law dictates that government should not abuse their powers as per AV Dicey’s concept of the rule of law. In addition, the civil courts endorse economic activity, allowing contracts to be made between strangers because rights are taken care of in the courts if they are breached.
