Mentally Ill Pros And Cons

In the video, “The New Asylums”, it demonstrated how deinstitutionalization has left thousands of mentally ill patients in the hands of the prison system. As the mental health hospitals closed down, the police department and prison system has become responsible for the mentally ill people that are on the streets. There was a firm point made about the release of mentally ill patients- “When hundreds of thousands of mentally ill are released, they do not magically become healthy. They went to the streets, became homeless, and turned to a system that cannot say no.” The video also stated that today, there are nearly 500,000 mentally ill people being held in jails and prisons throughout the country. Furthermore, there was no safety net for those

Mental illness can happen at any time in the lifetime of a person. The illness affects the mind and alters a person’s feelings, thinking and behavior hence a difficulty in functioning. A majority of mentally ill people live on the streets, commit crimes and are imprisoned instead of getting proper treatment at a mental health facility. Pete Earley’s Crazy: A Father’s Search through America’s Mental Health Madness points out the essence of educating the society about dealing with mentally ill people. Earley uses his son’s condition to emphasize on the need for medical treatment rather than the imprisonment of mentally ill people. He notes that the society cannot ignore the rights of the mentally ill in accessing treatment (Earley, 2006). Notably, the justice system ought to be reformed to help the mentally ill to live a normal life like any other person.

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).

People with mental illness have always been discriminated against; to have an exclusion such as this go through Congress without being repealed is reprehensible. The IMD Exclusion provides the states with financial incentives to provide substandard care, or no care at all. It encourages states to shift costs by placing mentally ill patients anywhere but psychiatric hospitals (Davoli, 2003).

Prisons are home to 33,000 mentally ill patients in California, alone. Filling 30 percent of California’s overall prison population, the prisons are becoming unconstitutionally crowded (Source C). In a Federal District Court ruling in Sacramento, “Judge Lawrence Karlton noted that the treatment of the seriously mentally ill continues to violate prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment” (Source C). Poor staffing is not fully to blame for inadequate care, insufficient treatment space, and suicide rates. When President Kennedy began the community mental health centers movement, he deprived the mentally ill of shelter which forced patients to live in the streets (Source A).

Given the number of incarcerated inmates who suffer from some form of mental illness, there are growing concerns and questions in the medical field about treatment of the mentally ill in the prison system. When a person with a mental illness commits a crime or break the law, they are immediately taken to jail or sent off to prison instead of being evaluated and placed in a hospital or other mental health facility. “I have always wondered if the number of mentally ill inmates increased since deinstitutionalization” Since prison main focus is on the crimes inmates are incarcerated; the actual treatment needed for the mentally ill is secondary. Mentally ill prisoners on the surface may appear to be just difficult inmates depending on the

Although there are many people who support involuntary commitment, there are also those who do not. Despite all of the support for involuntary commitment of dangerous, mentally disturbed individuals; there will always be people in opposition to this practice. In America especially, it is currently a very controversial topic. Those against involuntary commitment of the mentally disordered argue that it “is an extraordinary exercise of paternalism and the police power of the state” (Morse 58).

Due in part to the community's lack of preparedness and resources, the needs of many of the deinstitutionalized has not been meet. Therefore many of the mentally ill have ended up exchanging hospitalization for institutionalization in prison or jail." This situation left many mentally ill on the streets with no one to look after them except the nation's police. Another reason for the increasing number of mentally ill individuals in the community is the expense of mental health services. Many individuals are unemployed and therefore without income. Many are not covered by health insurance and the individuals who do have insurance are often smothered under restrictions on coverage for mental illness. Others face time limits on in-patient treatment that will have rewarding effects. Others have difficulty accessing government-funded health coverage. Others depending upon their condition are not even aware that this program exits. Regardless of the reasoning police, as well as judge's and probation officers are on a daily basis faced with the increasing number of mentally ill individuals that are rotated amongst the system.

The United States criminal justice system has been continuously increasing incarceration among individuals who suffer from a sever mental illness. As of 2007 individuals with severe mental illness were over twice as likely to be found in prisons than in society (National Commission of Correctional Health Care, 2002, as cited in Litschge &Vaughn, 2009). The offenses that lead to their commitment in a criminal facility, in the majority of cases, derive from symptoms of their mental illness instead of deviant behavior. Our criminal justice system is failing those who would benefit more from the care of a psychiatric rehabilitation facility or psychiatric hospital by placing them in correctional facilities or prisons.

Every individual is accorded with civil liberties which are protected both by the federal and state laws. They cannot be deprived with their liberties without due process of law except when there are compelling reasons to do so. One of the processes which deprive impaired persons from their civil liberties is civil commitment. The State of Utah (2016) defines civil commitment as a legal process of incarcerating an individual with symptoms involving several mental illnesses by providing compulsory, court-ordered treatment. Individuals are detained and are restricted from their movements because the illnesses they have may pose imminent danger to others or even themselves. For the purposes of this paper, the topic to be assessed

The incarceration of those who are mentally ill is on the continual rise. Many states juggle with the decision of placing offenders in Mental Hospital or locating them in State Prisons. Latessa and Holsinger (2011) discuss two major reasons for the increase of those with mental illness within the prison system. First, many states have no longer allow for the insanity plea during criminal trials, thus those who suffer from mental illness are not required to receive mandatory mental treatment. This is due to the discomforting idea that criminal offenders should not be given the same living conditions as those whom are patients of mental wards. Secondly, longer sentences have created a surplus of mentally ill offenders needing treatment. Soderstrom (2007) added that the lack of mental health support systems in

Attitudes toward the mentally ill started to change in the 60’s and 70’s from both the communities and professionals. The two began to recognize that the mentally ill had rights to live an independent life style like that of ordinary citizens. Before this, people with mental illness or developing disabilities had been institutionalized, giving strong medications, sedated and isolated from the rest of society. Living amongst the community, they receive their medication as well as interact with the general public. In addition, they also interact with security personnel and law enforcement officers, and all too frequently with unfortunate consequences. (Russell, 2012).

Ultimately, involuntary commitment remains a complicated medically and ethically debated topic; one that creates a conflict and clear divide, between individuals who content that involuntary commitment results in vulnerable individuals with psychiatric illnesses being subjective to coercion and civil rights infringement, and those who believe, based on the principle of utility, that involuntary commitment is essential and integral to the safety of the those with psychiatric illnesses, as well as to society as a whole. Both sides offer empirical evidence, as well as moral support for why they believe involuntary commitment is either legally and morally acceptable, or ethically unacceptable, and thereby should be illegal. Regardless, infringing

Throughout the centuries mental illness has been treated by countless treatments. Modern treatments have created an argument over which treatment options are best. the most debates treatments today are medication and therapy. the argument of medication versus therapy as treatments for mental illness is fairly new. Yet, proponents of both sides have strong arguments stating the advantages of their treatment option. proponents of medication believe pharmacogenetics, tailored treatments, and medication's ability to treat severe disorders makes medication the better treatment option. proponents of therapy believe drug addiction, suicide prevention, and need adaption establishes therapy as the better treatment choice.

Mental illness is a prevalent issue in our country today. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration estimated that 20-25% of our nations homeless suffer from mental illness (National Coalition for the Homeless, 2009). Many people with mental illness end up in prison without proper care and supportive housing (NAMI, 2011). Without proper care, people with severe mental illness cannot function as productive members of society (HCH Clinician’s Network, 2000). Proper housing, care, and professionals to guide them, the quality of life for people with severe mental illness is poor. In this paper, I will review and analyze three journal studies regarding policies about homelessness, and guardianship by public administrators