Elsevier

International Journal of Law and Psychiatry

Volume 33, Issue 4, September–October 2010, Pages 265-271
International Journal of Law and Psychiatry

Procedural justice and the mental health court judge's role in reducing recidivism

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2010.06.009Get rights and content

Abstract

Based on qualitative observation and quantitative data from eight mental health courts (MHCs), this article argues that observed reductions in recidivism from participation in MHC are caused in part by the role of the judge in conveying elements of procedural justice. Specifically, the judge provides: (1) a heightened level of interpersonal treatment of participants that accords them dignity, respect, and voice; (2) accountability for participants and service providers alike; and (3) transparency for decisions reached through an open negotiation process. Procedural justice theory predicts that participants will thereby be more likely to see legal decisions as legitimate and incorporate the court's values and goals as their own. Preliminary qualitative and quantitative data are presented from interviews of a sample of participants in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia's Mental Health Diversion Court (DCMHDC) that support these hypotheses. DCMHDC participants hold strongly positive views about the procedural justice they receive from their court experience and of the judge's role in providing justice.

Introduction

Evidence is mounting that mental health courts are able to reduce criminal recidivism among persons with mental illness both during and after participation in the court. Although the Council of State Governments' (2009) listing of essential elements of mental health courts is suggestive of causal hypotheses – including, most prominently, the provision of monitoring and coordinated treatment and services – empirical studies have not tested the precise mechanisms by which mental health courts produce this outcome. In this paper, we propose that the mental health court judge holds a pivotal position in bringing about reduced recidivism by pursuing a procedural regimen that conveys legitimacy to participants and invites internalization of the law's norms.

We draw from our observations of mental health court team meetings and open court sessions of a convenience sample of eight mental health courts across the United States over the past seven years. These courts represent rural, urban, metropolitan and inner-city jurisdictions. They include felony and misdemeanor courts, and pre-plea and post-plea regimes. Five of them have shown, by one measure or another, reductions in recidivism, at least during the period participants are in mental health court (Broner et al., 2005, Broner et al., 2009, Hiday et al., 2005, McNiel and Binder, 2007, Moore and Hiday, 2006, O'Keefe, 2006), and two have shown reductions for two years post-exit (Hiday and Ray, 2010, McNiel and Binder, 2007).

From these observations and building on the extensive literature on procedural justice, we hypothesize that the role of the judge is a significant contributory cause of observed reductions in recidivism. Three aspects of that role that constitute procedural justice combine to further participants' increased compliance with the law during court supervision and after supervision has ended: (1) the judge provides a quality of interpersonal treatment of participants that accords them dignity, respect and voice, builds trust by showing a concern for their best interests, and repeatedly emphasizes their control over their choice to participate; (2) the judge holds participants, attorneys and service providers alike accountable for their respective roles in participants' rehabilitation and resolution of their legal problems; and (3) the judge provides transparency, carefully explaining the reasons for all decisions. All three aspects contribute to conveying to participants a sense of legitimacy for decisions reached and an alliance of the values and interests of both participants and the law. These, in turn, lead to compliance with court mandates to cooperate with treatment and service providers and to desist in offending behavior.

Section snippets

Procedural justice

Traditionally, criminal law has aimed to achieve compliance with the law's commands through the mechanism of deterrence – inducing in the potential offender the fear that he or she will experience more cost (the pain of apprehension and punishment) than benefit from illegal activities (Robinson and Darley, 1997, Tyler, 2009). Yet recidivism data, at least for some segments of the offending population, suggest that deterrence is often an ineffective and alienating strategy (Pratt et al., 2006,

Setting

The Superior Court of the District of Columbia's Mental Health Diversion Court (DCMHDC) accepts competent mentally ill arrestees charged with misdemeanors who have no pending charge or recent past conviction of dangerous or violent felonies. It monitors participants for treatment and behavior compliance at required monthly status hearings. Upon consecutive four to six months of following court mandates, participants graduate and have their charges dismissed. Those who repeatedly fail to meet

Sample

For this analysis, we report data from structured interviews with a subsample of a larger study comparing all participants in the DCMHDC during its first two years of operation with all other mentally ill participants arrested in the same time period who were eligible for but not processed in DCMHDC. These treatment-as-usual participants receive from SSU the same screening, case management, drug testing and treatment, and mental health services referral as the DCMHDC participants. The subsample

Sample description

Table 1 presents the demographic characteristics of our sample compared with those of all MHC participants in the 1st two years of the court's operation and with all other SMI participants who were supervised and served in the same two years by the same Special Service Unit (SSU), which, as previously mentioned, provides case management and connection with mental health services plus drug testing and treatment for the dually diagnosed to both those in MHC and those not referred to MHC. Our

Summary and discussion

The results of our empirical study support our hypotheses concerning mental health courts derived from our observations of multiple courts and procedural justice theory: MHC participants hold strongly positive beliefs about the procedural justice they experience in MHC and the role of the judge in establishing procedural justice. Their responses to forced-choice items indicate a higher level of procedural justice on the entry process than that held by persons with mental illness in involuntary

References (41)

  • J. Dixon

    The organizational context of criminal sentencing

    The American Journal of Sociology

    (1995)
  • J. Fagan

    Legitimacy and criminal justice

    Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law

    (2008)
  • M.M. Feeley

    The Process is the Punishment: Handling Cases in a Lower Criminal Court

    (1992)
  • W. Gardner et al.

    Two scales for measuring patients; perceptions of coercion during mental hospital admission

    Behavioral Sciences & the Law

    (1993)
  • D.C. Gottfreson et al.

    How drug treatment courts work: An analysis of mediators

    Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency

    (2007)
  • V.A. Hiday et al.

    North Carolina's mental health court

    Popular Government

    (2005)
  • V.A. Hiday et al.

    Arrests two years after exiting a well-established mental health court

    Psychiatric Services

    (2010)
  • V.A. Hiday et al.

    Coercion in mental health care

  • R.A. Kagan

    Adversarial Legalism: The American Way of Law

    (2001)
  • C. Lidz et al.

    Perceived coercion in mental hospital admission: Pressures and process

    Archives of General Psychiatry

    (1995)
  • Cited by (93)

    • Client attitudes toward virtual treatment court

      2022, Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text