Download
mental health and juvenile justice n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Mental Health and Juvenile Justice PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Mental Health and Juvenile Justice

Mental Health and Juvenile Justice

112 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

Mental Health and Juvenile Justice

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Mental Health and Juvenile Justice Class 16

  2. CASE OF THE DAY: Pediatric Pedophiles • Facts • “Sarah” is one of over 200 minors charged in the past year with having consensual sex with other minors • Prosecution rate is low – 12/200 • Felony if one of the persons is below age 16, and misdemeanor if age 16-17. • Jurisdiction asserted by Child Protective Services agency, case investigated as an instance of child physical and sexual abuse • Medical, educational and other professionals or service providers are required to notify CPS • Both boys and girls are charged and prosecuted

  3. Issues • Who is prosecuted? • “Only those who pose problems to their families or schools….” • Selective? • What is the punishment? • Six months of court supervision • Mandatory separation from their sexual partners • Curfews and mandatory school attendance • Collateral consequences • Sex offender registration and notification for older teens (age 18 or older, or those waived to criminal court) • Criminal record and other stigma

  4. The Legislature’s Harm Reduction Reaction • Avoid registration is minor is four years younger or less (most states have 3 year gap, so WI is more liberal?) • Questions • Legal rationale? Public health? Special interest in protecting minors from harm and self-harm? • Parental preference? Conflict between state and parents’ interests? • What should the response be when minors engage in consensual sex? • Should there be a differentiated response for sexual acts other than intercourse? • Parameters of “consensual” – age, context, nature of act • Punishment? Culpability?

  5. MENTAL HEALTH • Historical Antecedents • Hijacking of juvenile court by psychologists and psychiatrists in its “second phase”, starting in the 1920s • Sharp rise in admissions of minors to mental hospitals in this era • Commensurate with expansion of institutional and other residential mental health services • Deinstitutionalization movements in the 1970s (linked to federal funding under 1974 JJDPA) • Private sector growth: increase in use of private MH facilities from 37% to 61% in one decade (Weithorn) – political economy?

  6. Practices • Standards for court-initiated placement to a MH institution or facility? • Behavioral criteria • Diagnostic Classification • “Severe problems” attributable to a “psychiatric disease” • Akin to diagnosis of “dangerousness” (Weithorn, at 787) • MH Diagnosis as marker of dangerousness

  7. Legal Regulation • Case Law • Parham v J.R. 442 U.S. 584 (1979) – court declined to require states to regulate use of private mental health placements. Court refused to limit discretion of either parents or state guardians in use of these facilities • Conflict with Gault? Other juvenile rights? • State interest only begins when the institution endangers child, then parental rights are circumscribed and state becomes protector of child

  8. Professional Regulation • Standards Projects? Very little, mostly “training and technical assistance” to improve services– see: National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice, http://www.ncmhjj.com/ • Financial oversight through state insurance regulators – effective? • Mandated review of admissions – substitution of procedural oversight instead of substantive review of decision making

  9. Juvenile Justice Placements • “Transinstitutionalization” beginning in the 1970s when JJDPA limited juvenile court jurisdiction for non-delinquents • Sharp expansion by courts following JJDPA (Herz, at 173) • For delinquents, MH options expanded in 1970s within juvenile corrections agencies for “dangerous” offenders with diagnosed mental health problems – secure TX

  10. Prevalence estimates • Detention: • See: Linda A. Teplin, et al., Psychiatric Disorders in Youth in Juvenile Detention, 59Arch Gen Psychiatry 1133-1143 (2002). • DISC measurement (interviewer-guided self-report of symptoms) • 1172 males, 657 females, ages 10-18 years in secure detention in Cook County • 2/3 of males and 3/4 of females met diagnostic criteria for one or more psychiatric disorders. • Half of males and almost half of females had a substance use disorder, and more than 40% of males and females met criteria for disruptive behavior disorders. • Affective disorders were also prevalent, especially among females; more than 20% of females met criteria for a major depressive episode. • Rates of many disorders were higher among females, non-Hispanic whites, and older adolescents.

  11. Corrections Source: California Youth Authority, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Needs Assessment, 2000; Thomas Grisso, Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument for mental health needs of juvenile justice youths. 40 Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 541-548 (2001).

  12. Correctional Institutions • Capacity of correctional institutions to protect kids with MH problems? To treat them? • How are classifications and decisions made? • Validity of testing and classification measures? • Steven Erickson, “Psychological Testimony on Trial: Questions Arise About the Validity of Popular Testing Methods,” XIX Law Guardian Reporter, December 2003 • Daubert tests challenge validity of MMPI, Rorschach, others (see also NYT, 3/9/04, Science 1).

  13. Decision Making and Disparity • Which offenders receive mental health placements and which are sent to correctional institutions? • Disparities by race and gender? • Balance of ‘penal proportionality’ with treatment needs?

  14. Herz Study • N=4,758 cases • Females, Whites, Age (younger) more likely to receive MH placement over other correctional placements • Prior record and offense seriousness were not significant predictors • Geographic and court jurisdiction variations reflect availability of services and different preferences of judges (PPG articles)

  15. Current Climate • PPG Articles • Deinstitutionalization has depleted MH resources, created dependence on JJ system for kids with mental health or emotional problems • $ • Low threshold for detention and incarceration creates little room for risk in placement decisions • PA HB 1448 – relaxes standards for involuntary commitments of youths for mental health and substance abuse treatment based on physician recommendation

  16. Some Issues • Disparity by race and gender • Overuse and difficulty of regulation • Is it punishment? • Future of Parham? • Sexual abuse and institutional violence – revictimization • What happens if we import Hendricks logic?