The Community Treatment Orders ( Cto )

This legislation is there to protect individuals from harm and abuse, it also protects the rights of that individual so that they have the freedom to believe, do and say as they wish without the fear of repercussions. The legislation also protects individuals from harm by ensuring that they are in a

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.

In today’s society more and more people believe that there are all these regulations on their rights, however this is not the case. The decreasing number of people who still believe that there are rules and restrictions on certain

“The current socio-political environment suggests continued “chipping away” at the foundation of this public policy. It is essential that the social welfare community be an active participant in the debate about the future of anti-discrimination efforts and that it offer viable alternatives to preserve and extend efforts to fight discrimination in this country” ( p. 153).

Fish's (2013) assertion that compulsory treatment is ineffective resulting from a lack of voluntary trust is contrary to the conventional policy rationale and discredits diversion treatment. Lastly with regard to civil commitment, Fish (2013) argues that, “for non-problem users, therapy turns into a charade”. I believe that Gostin (1991) is correct in that society must weigh the compulsion of treatment against the efficacy, however Fish shows us that our current models are ineffective as “non-problem” users find treatment unnecessary and that problem users are unable to receive effective treatment in a compulsory manner.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the practice of Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) outside the United States, and to compare and contrast its likeness and effectiveness between different countries. This paper will examine the results of ACT implementation studies within Denmark, Hong Kong, Norway, and the United Kingdom.

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

Community service should be completed voluntarily or by court order. Making completing a years worth of community service to be done between the ages of 18 and 30 is unnecessary. There is no need for passing a law of such in the United States.

According to the new law that was introduce by the Home Secretary, under this new law they provide security to victims from extreme psychological and emotional abuse.

The topic chosen for the POI is readmission rate of patients diagnosed with schizophrenia that is nonadherent to medication, an issue that remains a problem in healthcare today. Since there is a direct relationship between rate of admission and poor compliance to antipsychotic medications (Busch et at., 2015), reviewing how frequently they are hospitalized is a great way to indicate their prognosis (Emsley, Nuyamah, hough, & Gopal, 2012). The reason for selecting this particular phenomenon of interest was to grasp a better understanding of the leading contributor that cause rehospitalization to occur frequently and explore how it impacts the patient’s mental health status and healthcare (i.e. medical cost). Schennach et al., (2012) states that 52% of patients will relapse within their first year of being discharged from treatment while Chi et al. (2016) report it as high as 60-70%.

“A suicide attempt predicts a 20 percent risk of another attempt” (Amidov par. 9) However, those 80 percent of suicide attempters who will not make another attempt will lose their liberty and be involuntarily hospitalized though unnecessary. Despite modern-day developments and innovations, doctors still cannot accurately predict who will make a suicide attempt in the future, so locking up individuals when evaluation and prediction of their danger to themselves are uncertain does not benefit the liberty and prosperity of numerous people in society. Some may argue that involuntary hospitalization may be necessary as they could have impaired judgment regarding their state. While this is certainly true as one’s ability to assess their own state of mind can be debilitated, there are better alternatives to involuntary hospitalization which protect the mentally ill and others in society. For example, “Assisted Outpatient Treatment is a court-supervised treatment in which people can live outside psychiatric hospitals under close care...80% of AOT recipients reported that AOT helped to get and stay well” (Assisted Outpatient Treatment par. 5). Mentally ill patients receiving AOT are not confined to a small hospital room and can experience liberty while under close supervision. It is difficult to determine whom involuntary hospitalization will benefit, but other alternatives such as Assisted Outpatient Treatment exist to provide care to mentally ill patients without severely restricting their lives as hospitals

Community corrections can be defined as orders and strict instructions given to convicted adults and young ones, which occur in a community setting outside jail or prison. It involves the supervision and management of offenders by community correction officers in the community. It usually happens when offenders are imposed to undertake community projects as an alternative to imprisonment. It can also be a condition of release on parole from prison. Community corrections bring several benefits to the offender such as learning how to become accountable and how to plan effectively (National Institute of Justice, 2014).

Community corrections can be defined as orders and strict instructions given to convicted adults and juveniles, which occur in a community setting outside jail or prison. It involves the supervision and management of offenders by community correction officers in the community. It usually happens when offenders are imposed to undertake community projects as an alternative to imprisonment. It can also be a condition of release on parole from prison. Community corrections bring several benefits to the offender such as learning how to become accountable and how to plan effectively (National Institute of Justice, 2014).

In Australia, public policy is continuing to focus on ensuring that all programs are protecting the rights of different individuals during the process. This is because the Racial Discrimination Act is imposing strict penalties upon any entity that is in violation of these provisions. As the law is going after outright discrimination (in areas such as: the workplace, housing and the distribution of public services) to hatred that is directed from one person to the other. This is designed to prevent all forms of racial discrimination from taking place on all levels inside society. (Cropanzano, 2001) (Greenberg, 1990)

On 22 December 2014, the Victorian Court of Appeal delivered a guideline judgment on community correction orders. The Director of Public