1 / 17

David Meyer, J.D. Institute of Psychiatry, Law and the Behavioral Sciences

Problem-Solving and Collaborative Mental Health Courts: An Adjustment to Justice. David Meyer, J.D. Institute of Psychiatry, Law and the Behavioral Sciences U.S.C. Keck School of Medicine dmeyer@usc.edu 818-257-1221. David Meyer, J.D.

shaun
Télécharger la présentation

David Meyer, J.D. Institute of Psychiatry, Law and the Behavioral Sciences

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Problem-Solving and Collaborative Mental Health Courts: An Adjustment to Justice David Meyer, J.D. Institute of Psychiatry, Law and the Behavioral Sciences U.S.C. Keck School of Medicine dmeyer@usc.edu 818-257-1221 David Meyer, J.D. Institute of Psychiatry, Law and the Behavioral Sciences U.S.C. Keck School of Medicine dmeyer@usc.edu 818-257-1221

  2. Problem-Solving and Collaborative Mental Health Courts: An Adjustment to Justice David Meyer, J.D. Institute of Psychiatry, Law and the Behavioral Sciences U.S.C. Keck School of Medicine dmeyer@usc.edu 818-257-1221

  3. Objectives • Describe MHCs, their operations and related outcomes data • I.D. some specific anomalies of MHC operations compared to traditional justice • Observe the apparent ethical and practice boundary “issues” • Propose resolutions and solutions to the anomalies and issues

  4. Welcome to My Bias • I strongly believe in Problem-Solving, Collaborative approaches to justice • A legal systems/lawyer perspective (adjusted for error) • Opportunities/Change • My focus: rationalize practice boundaries and ethical challenges in Collaborative Courts

  5. Adversary Courts • Opposing “Sides” • Polarized • Secrets • Conflict • Binary processes • Constrained by arcane historical rules • Passive judicial role • Limited outcomes potential

  6. Why Think Differently? • Insanity (Einstein definition) • Adversary justice is inadequate to address mental health problems • Institutional treatment does not work (in most cases) in terms of recovery and LTC • Cost: • Systems redundancy • Expensive default • Poor systems linkage • Time to follow the evidence

  7. MHC Evidence • Decreased: • Re-arrest rate • Number of arrests • Incarceration days • Increased: • Linkage to services (all of them) • Non-custodial housing • QoL satisfaction

  8. History • An iteration of Problem-Solving Justice derived from Drug Courts • Created in Broward County Florida by Judge Ginger Lerner-Wren • Early support from DOJ and Consensus Project • Losing their identity to other specialty courts, viz: veteran’s courts, community courts, homeless courts, elder courts…

  9. Commonalities of MHCs • A team approach that involves information sharing among judges, attorneys, probation staff, and mental health professionals • Screening and assessment of the problem(s)occurs early in the criminal justice process • Diversion from traditional criminal justice processing into treatment • Early intervention in the criminal justice process • An emphasis on problem solving and developing interventions/ treatment to reduce the likelihood of reoffending • A focus on continuity of care with treatment tailored to fit individual needs and circumstances

  10. Commonalities of MHCs • A strong focus on supervision • Defendants' understanding that the primary focus of the mental health court is on treatment and not adjudication of their case • Understanding by mentally ill defendants that their participation in the mental health court is voluntary • More personal interaction between the judge and the mentally ill defendant than in a traditional court • The use of rewards and sanctions • Restorative justice and victim involvement • *Recovery, wellness & long-term mentality • Ref.-- https://www.bja.gov/evaluation/program-adjudication/problem-solving-courts.htm

  11. Variability • There are as many different types of MHCs and there are MHCs • Entry criteria vary widely • Different levels and types of staffing • Dependent on judge’s (everyone’s) personality and approach • Measures and outcomes • Sources of funding

  12. Legal Sacred Cows • Equal access/Equal Protection • Sixth Amendment issues: • Confrontation • Public proceedings • Negates fact-finding function of criminal court • Role of counsel; attorney no-no’s • Nature of “counseling” • Voluntary? • Categorical funding

  13. Clinical Sacred Cows • Clinician-Patient bond • Confidentiality and privacy • HIPAA, W.I.C. §5328 • Informed consent • Breadth of consent • Clinical practice limitations (boundaries) • Therapeutic no-no’s

  14. MHC Processes • Consensus decision-making • Judicial “activism” • Boundary jumping • Role distortion • Long-term focus • Interim and terminal rewards • Mild and moderate sanctions • Tolerance for failure • “External” individual and agency integration

  15. Rationalizing MHC Conflicts • Joint practice guidelines • “Internal” supervision • “External” approval • Ethical and practice safe harbors • Effective consents • Blended and joint-agency funding • Adversary system safety nets

  16. Resources • National Center for State Courts (NCSC)--http://www.ncsc.org • Council on State Governments Consensus Project-- http://consensusproject.org • U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Assistance-- https://www.bja.gov

  17. Problem-Solving and Collaborative Mental Health Courts: An Adjustment to Justice David Meyer, J.D. Institute of Psychiatry, Law and the Behavioral Sciences U.S.C. Keck School of Medicine dmeyer@usc.edu 818-257-1221

More Related