Institutional Treatment For Psychiatric Disorders

Often times there were discriminated against and forced to be housed separately from other prisoners and were often times even denied equal access to prison rehabilitate programs. In 2011 Alabama was one of only two states that was segregating inmates living with HIV. In Henderson et al. v. Thomas et al. a federal judge ruled that the Alabama Department of Corrections (ADCO) could no longer discriminate against prisoners living with HIV by housing them separately from all other prisoners and could no longer deny them access to the prisons rehabilitative programs. U.S. District Court Judge Myron H. Thompson ruled that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibited blanket disability-based exclusions and mandates that prisoners with disabilities must be housed in the most integrated settings appropriate to the needs of the individuals. Exceptions must be made on a case by case basis if the situation specifically warrants a different treatment. The court then ordered The Alabama Department of Corrections to develop a plan to end its discriminatory

The shutdown of state mental hospitals and lack of available financial and institutional resources force mentally ill people to the United States Judicial System for mental health. Every year thousands of people are arrested for various crimes and they are sent to jail. Sixteen percent of these people have some type of mental health problem (Public Broadcasting System , 2001). When we consider that the United States has the largest incarcerated population in the world at 2.2 million, this number is staggering (Anasseril E. Daniel, 2007). This is about 1% of the entire population of the United States. There are many reasons as to why the situation has taken such a bad turn and when the history of the treatment of mental illness is examined one can see how the situation developed into the inhumane disaster it is today.

Olmstead vs. L.C., which is the case that led to the Olmstead Decision, is considered to be one of the most important civil rights cases during the 20th century (Zubritsky, Mullahy, Allen, & Alfano, 2006). The Olmstead Decision was put into place after two women with a diagnosis of mental illness and developmental disability were voluntarily placed in a psychiatric facility and remained institutionalized for years. Even after efforts made by the women’s staff members to move them into a community setting, they were not moved until the Supreme Court’s 1999 decision in the Olmstead case (Cashmore, 2014).

Problem Statement: The World Health Association defines ‘good’ health as: “a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.” However, in the United States, access to care and funding for mental health care are grossly neglected and underfunded in comparison to other aspects of health care.

One of the most controversial issues regarding the mentally ill and the prison system is the medical treatment received. According to the film, “16% of the prison population in the state of Ohio, which reflects a national average, are persons who have been diagnosed with mental illness.” Prisons began as an institution designed to rehabilitate, however, a vast majority of prisons throughout the country do not provide adequate medical care for their mentally ill inmates. However, the prisons that do possess adequate health care are most likely the first instance in which the inmates with mental illness have received any sort of treatment in their entire life. People with chronic mental illness need constant supervision which they cannot get outside of prison. Although inmates does not receive the most extensive treatment, the treatment they do receive is well beyond the treatment they would have received had they stayed out of the criminal justice system.

Within contemporary society, the legal process of placing an individual into a detention or psychatric treatment facility is called "civil commitment." Typically, this is reserved for the mentally ill, or those people who have satisfied the Court's rule that they are a danger to others, or to themselves. Society realizes that, at times, an individual may pose a danger to themselves or to society and be unable to make rational decisions. In fact, in most jurisdictions in the modern world, involuntary commitment procedures are specifically applied to individuals who have manifested some form of serious mental illness that acts to impair their reasoning to such extent that they are unable to make cogent and logical decisions. Therefore, at these times the state (the Court system) must intercede to find ways to make the appropriate decisions under a legal template. Involuntary commitment may have, in the past, been used in certain situations, inappropriately, but the statutory criteria that indicates one is a danger to self or others usually acts as a legal axiom (Korba, 2008).

The Olmstead Act requires public agencies to provide services “in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities.” Further, the act mandates that states place qualified individuals with mental illnesses in community settings, rather than in institutions. Being placed under IOC is contingent upon whether or not such placement is appropriate, affected persons do not oppose such placement, and the state can reasonably accommodate the placement, taking into account resources available to the state and needs of others with disabilities, (The Center for an Accessible Society, 1999). In conclusion, the Olmstead Act provided for the legal groundwork to both provide and enforce IOC.

Residential Services: On Sunday, July 19th 2015, it was reported to SC that Jamar and his roommate attempted to run from the facility. In doing so, Jamar broke a window and caused physical injury to his knee while trying to jump a fence. Ms. Knox contacted SC via email stating the facility was interested in having Jamar removed from the facility and Jamar would be charged with Malicious Damage to Property under $2,000.

Mental asylums. The first thing that usually comes to mind is dark, prison-like buildings with dangerous people locked up in rooms by themselves. Characters such as the Joker from the Batman comics come to mind, he had severe and dangerous mental problems that make him extremely dangerous to both himself and others. This mentally ill man is kept locked away, so that he cannot hurt other people, which makes sense that he is in prison. Although not every mentally ill person is as sick as the Joker, they do need to be kept safe and given necessary treatment. These asylums that have been closed down, were the places these sick people could get their treatment. They were kept safe and thus able to receive the necessary treatment to keep both

In the case of Olmsted v. L.C, the court ruled on the side of Lois Curtis and Elaine Wilson. There were two major outcomes of the case. The first was that mental illness is a disability and therefore covered under ADA, and second Title II, which covers state and local governments, cannot exclude a group of individuals from receiving such benefits. As justice Ginsburg stated in her decision

Today’s correctional facilities are taking on chronically mentally ill individuals causing them to be over-crowed with lack of resources and proper care. Prisons and jails were not built to houses the severely mentally ill, this was never the purpose of prison because they simply do not have the proper training or adequate care for such a high maintenance inmates. State prisons have become the new de facto psychiatric hospital for those who need mental health treatment. This developing problem come from the severely mentally ill being admitted into correctional facilities, which ultimately stemming from the deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill from government funded mental health treatment centers. The deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill took effect those who needed resources and care went without treatment, which only increases the symptoms related to their disorder causing them to engage in petty crimes sometime followed with more serious offensive landing them in jail or prison. Ultimately, mainstream prisons are not equipped to handle mentally ill inmates. Prisons need to offer some type of effective and extensive mental health services to treat those inmates who

Mental health courts are courts specifically dedicated to offering an alternative option to incarceration for the mentally ill offenders by providing treatment options. The idea of mental health courts is noble, one should not view only the benefits but also the possible detrimental impacts they could have on the public before providing funding. One can only make an informed decision on the merits of mental health courts funding when they weigh the benefits recidivism rates, public safety, equality for the mentally ill against the detrimental effects such as reintegrating convicts back into society, promotion of medicalization of deviance, and the possible unnecessary arrests.

the united states supreme court rule 6-3 in the case of olmstead v l.c. which established that when patients were qualified for community-based treatment, the state could take into account the available resources in determining whether patients were entitled to immediate community placement. the office for civil rights (ocr) continues to work to support the olmstead decision and ensure its proper application while also ensuring the Americans with disabilities act is upheld. the ocr stands by the main purpose of the supreme court's ruling in providing community-based services for individuals with disabilities when that is the most suitable option.

has had to create new policies and methods in order to combat this social issue. According to a report from the National Sheriff’s Association and Treatment Advocacy Center, ten times as many mentally ill people are in prison and jail in America today than are in mental health treatment facilities (Mills, Steinberg, & Romano, 2015). One example is the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, passed by Congress in 1980. The primary concern of this act was to “authorize redress in cases involving deprivations of rights of institutionalized persons secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States” (Congress, 1980). This act applied to the institutionalized mentally ill, U.S. prisoners , and juveniles. With the passing of this act, Congress took a step in the direction of giving a voice to the most vulnerable in

American history is littered with tails of reform and revolution. Earlier on in America’s young life, revolution included war, struggle for basic human rights and dignity as well as radical tactics taken by the public. As time went on Americans learned that revolution and reform could occur through the government systems that our forefathers had put in place. The battle for human rights has all but ended but the way in which Americans wage war is a different story altogether. Now American’s fight for better public healthcare, equal rights for homosexual individuals and couples, and stricter standards for social welfare programs.