Category: Court

Introduction

Juvenile courts have been an integral component of the American juvenile justice system due to the increasing number of adolescent offenders and associated social dynamics (Champion, Merlo, & Benekos, 2012). Although the juvenile court system was initially designed around the medical model of rehabilitation based on individualized treatment, scholars agree that this model has lately been overshadowed by a desire to punish and incapacitate juvenile offenders (Moak, 2003). The present paper uses a case example of a 15-year-old larceny offender to delineate the perspectives of police officers, the state attorney, and the judge in the juvenile court system.

The perspective of Police Officers

The police comprise the law enforcement agency that the juvenile first come into contact with after the commission of the larceny offense. The police are expected to interview the juvenile and other witnesses with the view to not only establishing the facts, causes, and motives for delinquency but also to document the personality, behavior, background, educational status, family relations, and associates of the offender (Feld, 2006). This documentation should be done according to existing Juvenile Law and other forms of a criminal investigation that are sensitive to the age of the offender and his constitutional liberties (Taylor & Khan, 2013). Depending on the nature and scope of the theft offense, the police might arrange for a warrant of arrest to detain the juvenile for processing and referral to a public prosecutor within 48 hours of arrest (Feld, 2006). Police can use their power of suspicion (e.g., assessing the adolescents prior offending record, physical appearance, and fit with known offender profiling types) and power of prosecution to make an informed decision on whether to release the juvenile or place him on a judicial processing trajectory (Taylor & Khan, 2013).

The perspective of State Attorney

The state attorney has jurisdiction to review the charges against the juvenile, decide on whether to charge the offender, and offer plea bargains aimed at minimizing the seriousness of the charge in exchange for a guilty plea or other types of cooperation requested by the prosecution (Pennington, 2015). Although the state attorney represents the interests of the state in the case (Champion et al., 2012), it is prudent to focus on the individualized rehabilitation of the offender rather than punishment because the accused is a first offender (Moak, 2003). To balance the interests of the wronged community and/or victims with those of the juvenile, a good suggestion would be to consider a plea agreement where the juvenile agrees to the charges for onward integration into a rehabilitation process. The attorney might request the judge to consider imposing several conditions that may provide restitution and reinforce good behavior, including requiring the offender to pay a fine or attend school and complete all classes. In addition, the offender may be required to write a letter of apology to the wronged party for the state attorney to make a dispositional recommendation to the judge. Such rehabilitation-oriented practices, according to Cose (2010), are less costly, more effective, and contribute significantly to the holistic behavior modification of the offender.

The perspective of the Judge

The facts of the case show that the juvenile is a first offender and is yet to attain the minimum age for criminal prosecution according to the states juvenile justice system (pegged at 18 years). The value of the stolen property is put into consideration to make a sentencing determination as opposed to categorizing the offense since juveniles are not charged with misdemeanors or felonies (Pennington, 2015). Due to the plea agreement entered between the juvenile and the state attorney, the judge is certain to find the juvenile delinquent and make a disposition to place the youth on informal supervision or in a housing facility. Additionally, the judge may order the juvenile to pay a predetermined fine, compensate for the damages caused, or attend counseling or therapy to reinforce good behavior. Depending on state-specific juvenile justice procedures and the agreement between the parties involved, the judge has the discretion to impose mandatory minimum sentences in youth service programs, weekend detention programs, or full-time detention in a state-sanctioned juvenile detention facility (Kratcoski & Edelbacher, 2009). The delinquent finding reached by the judge is also enough to order the juvenile to attend a probation program for several months and to comply with all the terms and conditions set by the court, including meeting with a probation officer regularly and participating in behavior modification programs.

Conclusion

This paper has used a case example of a 15-year-old larceny offender to explain the juvenile justice system through the prism of police officers, the state attorney, as well as the presiding judge. The roles of these critical components of the juvenile justice system have been elaborated, in addition to providing balanced suggestions for punishment and appropriate judicial findings.

References

Champion, D.J., Merlo, A.V., & Benekos, P.J. (2012). The juvenile justice system: Delinquency, processing, and the law (7th ed.). New York City, NY: Pearson.

Cose, E. (2010). Rehabilitation beats punishment for juveniles. Newsweek. Web.

Feld, B.C. (2006). Police interrogation of juveniles: An empirical study of policy and practice. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 97(1), 219-316. Web.

Kratcoski, P.C., & Edelbacher, M.M. (2009). Juvenile justice in Austria and the United States: Similarities and differences. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 11, 203-216. Web.

Moak, S.S. (2003). Attitudes of Louisiana practitioners toward the changing juvenile court system. Journal of Juvenile Justice & Detention Services, 18,113-123. Web.

Pennington, L. (2015). A case study approach to procedural justice: Parents views in two juvenile delinquency courts in the United States. British Journal of Criminology, 55, 901-920. Web.

Taylor, M.F., & Khan, U. (2013). A comparison of police processing reports for juvenile graffiti offenders: Societal implications. Police Practice and Research, 14, 371-385. Web.

Introduction

The UK has three distinctive legal authorities. They comprise of Scotland, Northern Ireland, and England and Wales. Even though there are refined variances among the three sovereign judicial structures, it should be noted that they share considerable parts of the common law (Riches 67 par.5).

The article below illustrates the hierarchical arrangement of the court structure in England and Wales. Through this, an examination of each of the principal law courts will be provided with a stress on civil courts. Similarly, the article seeks to emphasis on how the common law policy of binding precedent relates to the court system.

The hierarchical arrangement of the court structures in England and Wales

In the United Kingdom, new laws are generated by the parliament or common law using judicial rulings (Adams 54 par.4). Parliament comprises of the House of Lords. The Parliament is mandated to legislate various statutes, which generate new laws. The hierarchal arrangement of the court system in England and Wales dictates that lower courts ought to put up with the higher courts ruling.

The table below illustrates the hierarchical arrangement of the court structure in England and Wales. The legal structure is indicated in descending order, which implies beginning with the highest-level court of the pecking order and concluding with the lowest one.

Supreme Court

In England and Wales, the Supreme Court is the utmost court of petition. It is the topmost court in the hierarchical judicial system (Adams 55 par.2). Prior the passage of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, the House of Lords oversaw the above responsibility (Arnold 443 par.8). The court is also the uppermost court of appeal for decentralization issues. It hears petitions from the Court of Appeal and at times from the High Court.

Senior Courts of the England and Wales

They are second in hierarchy. They came into existence after the passage of Judicature Acts. They were later called the Supreme Court of England and Wales in early 1980 (Bass 12 par.4) However, with the enactment of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 the courts obtained their present name. They comprise of the following courts:

• Court of Appeal  it comprises of two partitions. They are Civil Division and Criminal Division. The Civil Division adjudicates to cases from High Court, County Courts, and other higher court of law. On the other hand, Criminal Division adjudicates to cases from Crown Court linked with hearings of severe offenses.
• High Court  it operates as a public court of first appeal and a civic and criminal appellate law court dealing with issues from lesser courts. It comprises of three segments. They are the Queens Bench, the Chancery, and the Family partitions. The segments of this court are not discrete courts. As such, the divisions have slightly distinct processes and practices modified for their roles. Even though specific kinds of trials will be allocated to each partition based on their cases, every detachment may use the authority of the High Court. Nonetheless, initiating proceedings in the incorrect segment may lead to a cost punishment.
• Crown Court  this court adjudicates to issues for appellate and original authority. In England and Wales, this is the only court with powers to hear issues on an indictment. When adjudicating such a responsibility, it is the highest court. As such, the Clerical Court of the Queens Bench Division of the High Court does not have jurisdictions to review its verdicts.

Subordinate Courts

They are the third courts in hierarchy (Hazell 47 par.3). In England and Wales, Subordinate Courts are made up of the following courts:

• Magistrates Courts- in these courts, a lay magistrates bench, or a regional magistrate oversees hearings. No judges are present in these courts. They adjudicate petty criminal cases and some licensing pleas.
• Family Proceedings Courts  these courts arbitrate over domestic issues such as care cases. They also have the power to give adoption commands (James 53 par. 4). As such, these courts are not accessible to the public.
• Youth Courts  these courts arbitrate over cases involving criminals aged between ten and seventeen years. A set of skilled adult justices oversees these courts.
• County Courts  the courts are homegrown courts with only civil authority. They are present in 92 metropolises and municipalities of England and Wales. A district judge oversees them.

Special Courts

Additional exceptional courts in England and Wales are indicated below.

• Coroners Court  it handles with the issues of demise in doubtful circumstances.
• Ecclesiastical courts  is a unique court that addresses issues concerning the material goods of the Church of England.

Other Courts

The supplementary courts in England and Wales are indicated below:

• Military Courts  overseen by military personnel in problems linked to court martial.
• Election Courts  addresses pleas against the outcomes of the election.
• Patents County Court  hears cases involving some unpretentious intellectual assets.

The common law and the doctrine of binding precedent

Common law

From the 12^th century, English law has been referred as a common law instead of civil law (Riches 97 par.5). The above imply that the law has not been collected or restated with respect to its legal codes. Therefore, its judicial precedents are obligatory. During the prime periods of English common law, justices and adjudicators were accountable for adjusting the system of injunctions to satisfy everyday requirements. Through this, they used a combination of precedent and common sense to create up a structure of internally reliable law.

In England and Wales, adjudicators through judgments of courts and related hearings that resolve discrete cases produce the common law. Common laws are opposed to statutes, which are approved through the parliamentary procedure or protocols dispensed by the executive branch. A common law system is an authorized structure, which offers a great importance on common law (Riches 157 par.9). The above protocol dictates that dependable doctrines applied to analogous evidence should yield comparable results. The frame of earlier common law obligates judges who come up with future verdicts, in the same way any other law does, to safeguard consistent treatment.

Precedent

The concept of binding precedent is fundamental in the court structure in England and Wales. The principle refers to the fact that in the hierarchical assembly of courts in England and Wales, a verdict of a higher court is binding on a lesser court (James 56 par. 9). When adjudicators adjudicate issues, they will investigate if a comparable condition has earlier come before a court.

If the precedent was established by a court of equivalent or greater rank to the court hearing the new case, then the arbiter in the current case is expected to abide by the rule of law set in the previous case. It is imperative to establish that it is not the actual pronouncement in a hearing that establishes the precedent. As such, the precedent is established by the rule of law on which the verdict is based. The law, which is a concept from the truths of the case, is identified as the ratio decidendi of the litigation.

Any declaration of law, which is not an important portion of the ratio decidendi is redundant. Such announcement is called obiter dictum. Even though obiter dicta declarations do not constitute to binding precedent, they act as persuasive power and may be considered in future cases.

In instances where disagreements emerge with respect to whether the law is a common law, the courts are required to review previous precedential verdicts of pertinent courts. If a comparable issue has been decided in preceding cases, the court is typically bound to abide by the rule utilized in the previous decision.

When the court establishes that the present disagreement is fundamentally different from all earlier cases, adjudicators have the power and responsibility to establish a law by creating a precedent. The fresh judgment will be a precedent and will obligate upcoming courts.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it should be noted that the hierarchal arrangement of the court system in England and Wales dictates that lower courts ought to put up with the higher court ruling. In England and Wales, the Supreme Court is the utmost court of petition. It is the topmost court in the hierarchical judicial system. Subordinate to the Court of Appeal are Senior Courts, and Subordinate Courts.

In England and Wales, adjudicators through judgments of courts and related hearings that resolve discrete cases produce the common law. The concept of binding precedent is fundamental in the court structure. The principle refers to the fact that in the hierarchical assembly of courts in England and Wales, a verdict of a higher court is binding on a lesser court.

Works Cited

Adams, Alix. Law For Business Students. Harlow, England: Pearson Longman, 2008. Print.

Arnold, William. The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom: Something Old and Something New. Commonwealth Law Bulletin 36.3 (2010): 443-451. Print.

Bass, Cowman. Anaesthetists Guide To The Coroners Court In England And Wales. BJA Education (2015): 12-13. Print.

Hazell, Robert. Supreme Court UK-Style. Amicus Curie 2.4 (2011): 47-48. Print.

James, Adrian. Children, the Uncrc, And Family Law In England And Wales. Family Court Review 46.1 (2007): 53-64. Print.

Riches, Sarah. Keenan And Riches Business Law. Harlow, England: Pearson Education UK, 2013. Print.

Background

This case concerns the death of a billionaire who was the founder of a major transportation company. His name was Larry Hillblom, and after an airplane accident, he disappeared without a trace and was presumed dead. Due to the fact that he did not stipulate that illegitimate children would be unable to receive an inheritance, anyone who could prove themselves to be a child of Larry Hillblom would be a legitimate heir to his fortune. Hillblom had been extremely promiscuous in Southeast Asia and was likely to have multiple illegitimate children. Eventually, one filed a claim to the Hillblom estate. Larry Junior and his attorneys state that he is a biological son and could prove it through DNA testing. However, all DNA evidence of Larry Sr. was destroyed shortly after his death, with only a single mole left in possession of a hospital that will benefit from the inheritance. In addition, a law is soon set to pass that would prevent Larry Junior from having a claim on the inheritance. The estate is ready to settle with Larry Junior for 12 million dollars, but the attorneys state that the minimum settlement in the case would be 14 million dollars. However, the chances of victory are slim, and there are serious issues that need consideration. This paper will provide a decision tree to address these issues, decide whether Larry Junior should settle, and provide my personal opinion on the situation.

Decision Tree

Larry Juniors Decision

Larry Juniors situation is tied to a great number of variables, with each having its own probability. The first and perhaps the most important decision is whether he should accept the offer made by the estate. It would guarantee a $12,000,000 payout in the shortest time and with no extra cost to Larry Junior or his family. However, it would also prevent him from ever receiving the larger sums that he deserves as an illegitimate son of the billionaire. If the offer is rejected, Larrys attorneys would have to deal with a number of challenges before a court case could happen. Although there is a possibility of failure before the court case can start, such as the Hillblom law passing and being deemed constitutional, DNA being unavailable or not matching Larry Junior, as well as failure in court, the benefits of going to court are very high. Their EMV totals $41,400,000 and even the smallest win would be higher than the initial settlement. However, the safest and perhaps the best option for Larry Junior would be to accept the second offer of $40,000,000. This amount of money is higher than the majority of positive outcomes and has no point of failure, unlike going to court.

Minimum Settlement Sum

By calculating the overall EMV of rejecting the initial offer of $12,000,000, it is possible to find the lowest possible settlement that Larry Junior should accept. The EMV of all decisions after the offer is rejected is $19,010,880.This means that no offer lower than $19,000,000 should be accepted by Larry Junior because there is a high possibility of receiving larger settlements after the initial rejection. Nevertheless, the initial offer presents many opportunities for Larry Junior and his family, and perhaps external factors could sway them to accept the initial offer.

What I Would Do in This Situation

While I am not a gambler, I would hope that by rejecting the initial offer, a larger one would be available in the future. The Hillblom law poses a serious threat to my case, but it is clearly being written with the intent of circumventing the text of Larry Sr.s will, and I believe that there are serious arguments to be made against the implementation of such specific laws. However, just as I recommend to Larry Junior, I would settle for $40,000,000 after the DNA test matches my and Hillbloms DNA. The court case could result in a loss or lower payout, and while larger payouts are appealing, their odds suggest that I would end up with less money than the estate is offering. In addition, I cannot ignore the impact that $40,000,000 would have on my life, especially as a child of a single mother in Southeast Asia, which would allow me opportunities that were previously unavailable to me such as higher education, a change of residence, a higher chance of employment due to further education, and all the necessities of life that were previously a struggle to obtain. I would not be able to bet the future of our family on a low possibility of success.

Other Issues

Larry Junior would need to consider the time that the court process would take, the possibility of inflation affecting the settlement, and the current value of even the initial settlement. It is possible that Larry Juniors family is not in a position where they can wait for the process to be overdue to medical emergencies or socioeconomic factors. Therefore, the initial offer may be sufficient for them.

Introduction

The 1993-1994 court case of Lorena Bobbitt, who severed her husbands penis with a kitchen knife after being raped by him upon his return from a party in a severely intoxicated condition, involves the Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity plea (Samaha, 2017). Although insanity defense is rarely used and is less successful even in cases in which offenders appear to suffer from more severe disorders, the Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity plea was successful in the given case (Commonwealth v. Bobbitt, 1993). This paper discusses the defenders mental disorder, the relationship between the actions taken and behaviors demonstrated which could impact the decision of the court, as well as discusses the outcome of the case and its correctness.

The Mental Disorder and Symptoms

On the whole, the court decided that Lorena Bobbitt experienced an irresistible impulse, during which she committed the aforementioned violent act. The jury came to that decision based on the evidence that Lorenas husband regularly employed violence against her, repeatedly battering her, throwing her against a wall, using torture to inflict pain upon her, and raping her, therefore causing her to live in constant fear (Commonwealth v. Bobbitt, 1993).

It was taken into account that on the day of the mutilation, John Wayne Bobbitt also raped his wife. It was decided that, due to being a victim of continuous and severe domestic violence, Lorena was suffering from serious clinical depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (Bell, n.d.), and eventually lost control over her actions when she saw a knife during her visit to the kitchen after the rape. It was also taken into account that Lorena allegedly did not remember the process of severing the penis, and only realized what she had done later, while she saw the penis in her hand while driving a car to which she retreated after the act of mutilation (John Wayne and Lorena Bobbitt trials, 2002).

Thus, the indicators of Lorenas mental condition during the crime included symptoms characteristic of clinical depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, the absence of memories pertaining to the process of severing her husbands reproductive organ, and the evidence of being a victim to brutal domestic violence.

Actions and Behavior Causing the Court to Remand Lorena for a Mental Evaluation

Apparently, the actions and circumstances which took place prior to Lorenas act of severing her husbands penis, namely, the rape of Lorena Bobbitt by her husband, as well as the constant domestic violence of John Wayne Bobbitt aimed at his wife, were found to be capable of inducing a serious depressive disorder in the woman, as well as causing her to lose control over her actions when she saw the knife in the kitchen (Samaha, 2017).

Simultaneously, due to the behavior displayed by Lorena (severing the penis), she was perceived as potentially carrying a danger towards society. The mental state of the woman and her stated inability to take control over her actions may be considered evidence of a pathological state of her mind (Whitbourne, 2017), which justified the act of remanding the defendant for a mental evaluation in a hospital (Samaha, 2017).

Evaluation of the Outcome of the Case

In terms of the defendant, the outcome of this case was optimal, because it permitted Lorena to undergo a psychiatric evaluation so as to make sure that her mental health was not endangered while freeing her from the liability that she was facing because of committing the crime. It is stated that cases resolved as Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity usually result in the defendant being placed in a mental health hospital, the length of stay in which often exceeds the time which the defendant would have to spend in prison; however, in this case, Lorena Bobbitt avoided such a fate and was released after several weeks of stay (Greene & Heilbrun, 2014).

As for the victim, the outcome of the trial would probably have not had a considerable impact on his life regardless of what it would be unless it would have been decided that Lorena had to pay compensation to John Bobbitt. The couple divorced sometime after the process (John Wayne and Lorena Bobbitt trials, 2002). In any case, John Bobbitt was able to get his penis surgically reattached to him, so the damage caused to him was mitigated, at least partially (Davoli, 2005).

In the terms of community, it should be noted that the case attained a considerable amount of popularity in the U.S. Large numbers of people publicly sided with Lorena, for she was a victim of severe domestic violence for a long period of time (CBS News, 2008). The acquittal of the defendant on the basis of her insanity at the time of the crime was perceived by many as just (CBS News, 2008), for convicting her would mean that unwillingly snapping due to constant battering and violence would be punished while the real offender would walk free and continue ruining lives of other females.

Discussing the Court Decision

On the whole, the decision of the court to acquit Lorena Bobbitt on the basis of her being not guilty by the reason of insanity at the time of committing the crime appears well-grounded and just. First, it was known that the defender was suffering from serious clinical depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (Bell, n.d.), which allows for concluding that she had undergone serious adversity prior to the event of her husbands mutilation.

It was also clear that the woman had suffered from repeated domestic violence, rape, and battery, and lived in fear most of the time. Therefore, especially due to her fear, it is unlikely that she would have engaged in the process of severing the penis of her husband, who was the man she feared if she had been in her normal state of mind (Whitbourne, 2017). On the other hand, it is highly probable that she indeed lost control over her actions, which caused her to mutilate her husband while experiencing an irresistible impulse (Samaha, 2017).

It should also be pointed out that deciding that the woman was guilty would probably have had adverse political/ethical consequences, showing the country that a constantly terrorized, scared to death woman who had no means of protecting herself would have been persecuted by the legal system even if she lost her sanity due to the constant violence that she had been experiencing, and attacked her perpetrator in the state of a mental disorder.

Therefore, the decision of the court to acquit Lorena Bobbitt on the basis of being not guilty by the reason of insanity seems appropriate from both the point of view of the evidence presented for the court, as well as from the viewpoint of probably making the future slightly safer and freer from the acts of domestic violence.

Conclusion

On the whole, it should be stressed that Lorena Bobbitt was acquitted of her crime as being not guilty by the reason of insanity at the time of the crime, and remanded for a mental evaluation, which, however, did not last long. The court decision appears correct both on the basis of the presented evidence and with respect to the political implications of this case.

References

Bell, R. (n.d.). Crimes below the belt: Penile removal and castration. Web.

CBS News. (2008). Lorena Bobbitt, 15 years later. CBS News. Web.

Commonwealth v. Bobbit, No. 93-CR-33821 (1993).

Davoli, J. I. (2005). Reconsidering the consequences of an insanity acquittal. New England Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement, 31, 3-14.

Greene, E., & Heilbrun, K. (2014). Wrightsmans psychology and the legal system (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

John Wayne and Lorena Bobbitt trials: 1993 & 1994. (2002). Web.

Samaha, J. (2017). Criminal law (12th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

Whitbourne, S. K. (2017). Abnormal psychology: Clinical perspectives on psychological disorders (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.

The facts of the McKinney v. Arizona case

James McKinney and Charles Hedlund looted five homes in Phoenix, Arizona, in early 1991. Christine Mertens was beaten and stabbed by McKinney and Hedlund during one of the robberies. In the process of the robbery, McKinney killed Mertens by shooting her. Jim McClain was shot and murdered by McKinney and Hedlund with a sawed-off weapon in another heist. McKinney was found guilty of two charges of first-degree murder in 1992 by a jury (Death Penalty Information Center). McKinney was sentenced to death after a jury found him guilty of two murders with aggravating circumstances (McKinney v. Arizona). Arizonas Supreme Court affirmed McKinneys death penalties on the grounds of insufficient evidence.

The decision made by the U.S. Supreme Court in the McKinney v. Arizona case

The State of Arizona requested a second hearing of McKinneys death sentence from the Arizona Supreme Court in 2018. Justice Hurwitz stated, Independent review is the paradigm of direct review  we determine, de novo, whether the trial court, on the facts before it, properly sentenced the defendant to death (McKinney v. Arizona). Because of a constitutional mistake that occurred in the previous appeal, this case required a fresh direct hearing of the death penalty, which was granted by the Supreme Court (McKinney v. Arizona). Concerning the case of Ring v. Arizona, the Supreme Court ruled that perpetrators are eligible for a jury decision of any fact that warrants a rise in a maximum sentence where there are mitigating factors.

The Arizona Supreme Court upheld the state appellate jurys ruling, holding that a court may perform a re-evaluation of the contributing instead of a jury in cases involving the death sentence. In doing so, the Court failed to follow the Supreme Courts ruling in Eddings v. Oklahoma, which established that a death sentence must also take significant mitigating factors into account as a legal matter. The Arizona Supreme Court examined a jury rehearing in McKinneys case, and McKinneys case was upheld on appeal. The violence and trauma he suffered as a youngster triggered his PTSD (McKinney v. Arizona). Despite this and the evidence and extenuating factors, the Supreme Court concurred with the StatState confirming death penalties twice.

How the Courts decision will affect the lives of We the People

Due process for crime victims is guaranteed in both the United States and the Arizona Federal Constitution. Re-sentencing offenders would prolong their case, expose them to appeal and post-conviction punishment, and increase the prospect that additional guilty individuals will seek similar grief sentencing. There is a risk that the numerous victims of these previously handled crimes might be re-burdened (American Bar Association). A perpetrator is retraumatized each time they appear in Court for a new phase of litigation, resulting in severe damage to the healing and rehabilitation required for crime victims and their families.

Personal opinion as to the Courts decision

I concur with the Courts ruling on the grounds it used to deliver a verdict to McKinney. I feel that an insanity defense was employed in this case. McKinney has previously stated that he struggled with PTSD as a result of his background. He was not in the right state of mind when he killed Christine Mertens and Jim McClain as a result of this. In criminal justice, defenses include innocence, civil rights violations, alibi, lunacy, self-defense, protection of others, protection of property, involuntary drunkenness, voluntary intoxication, error of law/fact, duress or coercion, withdrawal, certainty, and the law governing. This informs the citizens that there are certain conditions that might be considered during a ruling while others cannot. The major issue is what led to one committing a certain crime or what factors led to that.

Works Cited

American Bar Association. McKinney v. Arizona. Americanbar.org, 2019, Web.

Death Penalty Information Center. McKinney v. Arizona. Death Penalty Information Center, 2021, Web.

McKinney v. Arizona, 140 S. Ct. 702, 589 U.S., 206 L. Ed. 2d 69, 2020.

Introduction

The concept, principle and practice of Drug Court across the United States provide a paradigm shift from the traditional process of imposing penalties and jail sentences on offenders. More studies have proven the effectiveness of drug courts in reducing offender recidivism and also in reducing the costs of maintaining penal institutions for offenders.

The popularity of drug courts has been primarily due to reports by studies and researchers that there have been reductions in recidivism by offenders. Empirical evidence points to the successes of drug courts across many counties in the United States.

Judges play a significant role in the implementation of drug courts, while offenders are also held accountable for their actions in following the programs and sanctions imposed upon them. Offenders have to comply with the rules and processes of the Drug Court.

Offenders have a strong incentive in being members of the Drug Court in that they have the prospect of avoiding being in jail for as long as they abide by the rules and cooperate in the success of the program. The Drug Court serves as a program to divert offenders from the traditional way of incarceration or being admitted in a correctional facility. (Goldkamp qtd. in Sanford and Arrigo 251)

The Drug Court System has also been used in administering juvenile justice. In a study by the Department of Justice, it was found that in 1999, juvenile offenders accounted for 11% of drug use offenders (U.S. Department of Justice Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2001 qtd. in Sanford and Arrigo 251).

Juvenile drug courts have also been introduced in line with the concept of adult drug courts due to the increasing successes of drug courts. Empirical evidence also shows significant successes of juvenile drug courts. (Hiller et al. 1)

Discussion

Proposing a Drug Court is by the current number of drug addicts in the community. Currently, there are more drug addicts than it was 3-5 years ago when our children used to roam around the neighborhood without the parents having to think about them.

Upon consultation with the various sectors and agencies involved in the criminal justice promotion, the following is a detailed plan of a Drug Court for the community.

The Drug Court Management Team

Members of the Drug Court Management Team have a big role to play in this practice. Their findings and inputs are the basis for the judges decision of the Drug Court and regarding the status of the offender. All in all, they shape the proceedings of the Drug Court program.

The Drug Court Team will be composed of the prosecuting attorney and defense attorney, treatment providers who will come from the Community Rehabilitation Center, the probation officer, and the local law enforcement unit. (Huddleston and Marlowe 7)

Duties and Responsibilities of the Drug Court

• With the Judge as Presiding Officer, the Drug Court shall hold regular status hearings, and this must be with the attendance of the prosecutor, defense counsel, treatment providers and other members of the Drug Court.
• During the first few months of the Drug Court, status hearings shall be done frequently, at least on a bi-weekly basis.
• Random drug testing shall also be done twice a week.
• Rewards should be provided by the Management Team to offenders who are making good progress in their treatment and performance.

The Participants

Eligible participants are drug and alcohol dependents. Drug addicts will be screened by the Management Team. Mostly, recommendations will come and will be subsequently accepted after screening from law enforcement and treatment providers.

Participants will be required to submit themselves for drug and alcohol testing regularly, but the process will be randomly done by the Management Team, particularly the treatment providers.

The Judge

The judge plays an important role in the Drug Court and is a pivotal figure in the drug court management team. His/her decision will be unprecedented in contemporary criminal justice proceedings. The judge shall have the dual role as formal and informal activist in the drug court model (Sanford and Arrigo 249).

The judge shall have the full authority to see that programs are enforced. Without the judges able leadership and authority, the Drug Courts effectiveness and power will be lost.

The judge can impose penalties and rewards depending on the progress of the participants. Rewards may be in the form of reduced supervision, gifts, or modification of treatment.

The Process

Funding for this program of a Drug Court will come from state coffers and from judicial funding. This program drug court program will also be used as a court for juvenile offenses and problem-solving court. Juvenile offenses are drug-related crimes that involved burglary and simple theft.

The existing Department of Justice process for drug court formation will be applied in this respect, including the unique structure, guidelines, and the use of judicial resources. The local government shall help in providing resources for this implementation. The duration of this Drug Court Team will last for one year or upon recommendation of the Team and as the need arises.

The Drug Court will bring together the efforts of the various community-based services and agencies involved in treating and rehabilitating the participants. Rather than the adversarial method of reforming offenders, the Court will aim to treat and rehabilitate participants and reduce the percentage of recidivism. Offenders will have the incentive of not being in jail for the duration of the program and as long as they do not violate the rules set forth by the judge and the Management Team.

The judge will assume a central leadership role and will have the discretion over the cases submitted under supervision and study by the Management Team (Goldkamp qtd. in Sanford and Arrigo 248). The participant or offender will be held responsible for his actions and will promptly report or make himself available during judicial status hearings, drug screening tests, and other schedules provided by the team such as counseling and treatment.

There will be sanctions whenever the offender cannot comply with the standards and conditions imposed by the Drug Court.

The Drug Court Management Team, which is composed of the judiciary, courtroom workgroup, and service providers, shall provide the necessary means to make the proceedings of the Court effective. The composition of the team that includes probation officers, treatment providers, and other nonjudicial members, is a departure from normal court and adjudication proceedings.

The Drug Court shall have the ability to shape the outcomes of the processes by providing programs, procedures, and goals that would meet the requirements for effective implementation. The principle to be followed in the processes is to create a courtroom workgroup that will be composed of the representatives of the community-based service agencies including treatment providers and probation officers.

The drug court management team will provide the basis for a final decision to be delivered by the judge who is the final decision authority. In other words, the teams feedback, information, screening and test results on offenders will be the judges basis for the decision. (Olson et al., qtd. in Sanford and Arrigo 248)

Judicial status hearings are another important part of the Court proceeding. It is assumed, and further supported by studies of the past (Sanford and Arrigo), that constant status hearing will result in the detection and infractions so that sanctions can be instituted upon the offenders. A study conducted in Portland and Las Vegas drug court systems by Goldkamp et al. (qtd. in Sanford and Arrigo 249), found that sanctions, drug court appearances, and treatment were important in the successful implementation of drug court programs.

Treatment will be an integral part of the Drug Court model and the offender will be held accountable for the progress of the treatment.

The Drug Treatment Services

Drug treatment services are an important part of the process, in fact, a central component of the Drug Court program. Service providers and rehabilitation centers will determine if an offender deserves treatment and if so needed, necessary procedures should be undertaken to benefit the offender.

Drug treatment will be administered depending upon the individual needs of the offender.

Sanctions

The judge will have the absolute power to impose sanctions based upon findings by the Drug Court Management Team. The members of the team including the probation officer, treatment service provider, and judicial court members will regularly report any violation of the offender. Sanctions will depend on the degree of violation and this can be brief jail detention, community service, or other light punishment that will be decided by the judge. If the offender becomes a recidivist, heavier penalties, such as jail detention, will be imposed.

Works Cited

Hiller, Matthew et al. A Multisite Description of Juvenile Drug Courts: Program Models and During-Program Outcomes. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, Web.

Huddleston, West and Marlowe, Douglas. Painting the Current Picture: A National Report on Drug Courts and Other Problem-Solving Court Programs in the United States. National Drug Court Institute, Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice, 2011.

Sanford, J. Scott and Arrigo, Bruce A. Lifting the Cover on Drug Courts: Evaluation Findings and Policy Concerns. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 2005.

In the court case, the Counsel for the Government of Yunkel has requested that Judge Rosemelle Hasty, one of the three Pre-Trial Chamber members assigned to the matter, be disqualified. They justify this request using articles 40 and 41 of the Courts Statute, which govern judge independence and disqualification, respectively. Before assuming her current position, Judge Hasty wrote a book in which she wrote, The scourge of Somalia Piracy may someday trigger the ICCs jurisdiction in a variety of contexts. For example, recruitment and use of juvenile pirates could be tried as a crime against humanity by the International Criminal Court if the Court had personal jurisdiction over parties responsible for this heinous practice. The Counsel for the Government of Yunkel takes issue with these statements, claiming that they indicate the Judges lack of impartiality in the matter. Such a bias would be problematic, given the novel nature of the question of juvenile piracy and its relationship with crimes against humanity.

The crux of the Counsels arguments lies in the wording of the Articles that they cite as their grounds for requesting the disqualification. Article 40(2) of the Courts Statute states, Judges shall not engage in any activity which is likely to interfere with their judicial functions or to affect confidence in their independence. The Council takes issue with the confidence aspect, as Judge Hastys prior writings have demonstrated her familiarity with the matter of juvenile piracy. She has likely already deliberated on scenarios similar to that currently taking place, as her mention of such a situation in her book indicates. Moreover, she names juvenile piracy a heinous practice, which demonstrates the presence of a bias. The Counsel case makes the case that this indication of a particular leaning is significant enough to damage confidence in Judge Hastys impartiality.

Following this conclusion, the Council makes a case for disqualification based on Article 41(2)(a) of the Statute. This clause adds the additional qualifier of reasonable doubts regarding any impartiality as the requirement for not permitting a judge to participate in a case. As an inter alia example, Article 41(2)(a) uses the Judges prior involvement in any national or ICC cases that also featured the person currently being investigated or prosecuted by the Court. Lastly, the Statute refers to the Rules of Procedure and Evidence as a potential reason for a judges disqualification, though this clause is unlikely to be relevant in this case, as the matter in contention is the Judges behavior before they assumed their current position. It can be presumed that the Counsels opinion is that Judge Hastys prior writing creates a reasonable doubt as to her impartiality in the present case.

The Prosecution asserts that there is no reason to consider the provided evidence substantial enough to warrant the Judges disqualification. All that the passage indicates is Judge Hastys familiarity with the matter of juvenile piracy and its potential legal implications. It is not unusual for judges to be aware of such issues, and if they are, they will almost inevitably develop an opinion regarding the stance that should be taken concerning them. This consideration is particularly relevant in the case of Judge Hasty, who presumably researched the topic to be able to present it in some detail in her book. This prior familiarity and theoretical opinion should not be considered disqualifying in this case, as they are not in most others. For the judiciary to operate, judges ability to overcome such biases and investigate the cases details impartially has to be acknowledged and respected.

The reasonableness of the doubt in question is also not necessarily as significant as the Counsel asserts. The international consensus frowns on any form of child labor, and it is not unusual to hold a strongly negative opinion of the practice. The usage of child soldiers, or pirates, as in this case, is particularly strongly condemned by most people worldwide due to the powerful unethical implications of such an act. As such, Judge Hastys description of it as heinous can be taken as purely moral. It is unreasonable to expect judges not to have personal opinions on matters of ethics, particularly ones as universally agreed upon as the one in this case. They still perform their duties in proceedings involving such issues and act according to the law, and the present situation is no exception.

The prosecution does not argue against there being a level of bias, even if it is theoretical, at which the Judge should be disqualified from the case. However, Article 41(2)(a) provides an example of a necessary bias level, which can be used as a baseline and benchmark. In its inter alia clause, the Statute asserts that judges have to be removed from the case if they and the person being prosecuted have been involved in a case before. During such a case, the Judge would have likely formed a personal impression of the individual that may have influenced their future opinions on court decisions. The Council has not established a similar degree of connection throughout their argument. This failure is particularly pertinent because, due to Judge Hastys book and the present case having little to no link, the burden of proof is higher than it would be for personal acquaintance.

With no past interactions to imply that the Judge may have a hidden bias, the final option that remains to the Counsels argument is to establish evidence of a potent enough inclination to override a judges impartial decision-making. However, no such evidence is present in the passage provided to the Court. While Judge Hasty condemns Somali piracy and juvenile piracy, in general, as established above, this judgment is moral. Although she discusses the possibility of a situation such as that before the Court now, she provides no opinion as to how the ICC should rule if presented with such a matter. The act of recruiting and using juvenile pirates is undeniably a violation of their human rights and qualified for a modern ethics-based description as heinous, but these facts have little bearing on its status as a crime against humanity.

The Counsels case to dismiss Judge Hasty has little merit, as it is based on highly subjective and weak accusations. Most of the cases reviewed by the ICC involve acts that are viewed by an absolute majority of humanity as morally inexcusable. Nevertheless, the Court can operate smoothly and retain the trust of its member states, which is a testament to the judges ability to remain impartial while discussing such cases. That a judge should share the same viewpoint as most people and express it publicly in an unrelated matter does not provide grounds for their disqualification. The Council has not supplied any reason to doubt that the present situation lies beyond Judge Hastys ability to act rationally and perform her duties as a judge. Hence, her disqualification would be groundless, and the Prosecution requests that the Pre-Trial Chamber rejects the objection of the Counsel for the Government of Yunkel about Judge Hastys disqualification.

Reference

International Criminal Court (ICC) Moot Competition | Pace Law School. (2016). Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University. Web.

Unique functions of a trial court

All trial courts only hold trials on cases. As opposed to appellate courts, trial courts always have jurisdiction over the original case. This simply implies that the trial courts are responsible for hearing a case for the first time it is taken for trial in a court. Appellate courts only hear appeals from individuals or groups of people who had previously gone to a trial court or any other lower court. It is only in trial courts that one would expect to find the jury. The jury is expected to find the facts linking to the case (Walker, 1980).

In the case of Woburn, the trial court could only address the issue brought up about the contamination of the towns drinking water. The court could only try the case by using the facts. If the court found that the companies caused the contamination, then the companies would be found guilty. Anything beyond that would have to be handled in the court of appeal.

The preponderance of the evidence

The term preponderance of the evidence means that the side that would provide greater evidence concerning the case would lead either the judge or the jury to take one side as opposed to the other. This means that the side that provides evidence that is more convincing would be favored. A mere preponderance is not as heavy as having truth beyond reasonable doubt which is the burden of proof in a criminal court. This difference in the burden of proof in civil and criminal trials is due to the assurance of the conviction.

In criminal court, the conviction must be certain but in a civil court, the trial might require more hearing in an appellate court (Walker, 1980). This difference might be due to the differences in remedies available in the different courts. It was easy for the plaintiffs to prove their case because the evidence was clear. The water contained the deadly chemicals that were being emitted during the companies production process.

The truth

When Facher said that the truth was at the bottom of a bottomless pit, he meant that the trial was an unreliable method of finding the truth. He believed that the truth did not only lie in the chemicals that were found in the water. He believed that the truth was found somewhere beyond the evidence provided in court against the companies. However, he was not correct when he suggested that because the truth is always based on evidence.

The concerns of Schlichmann

Schlichmann was so concerned when the judge did not allow his clients to go to the witness stand to recount their stories of the illness and death of their children before he could listen to the experts. Schlichmann was not impressed because he was concerned that the judge might give the opposing side a chance to provide strong evidence against his case. In other words, the experts had expert opinions on the root cause of death and the possibility that the cause of death might have been due to other reasons. The experts could also convince the court that the reason why the chemicals were found in the water was not due to their act of negligence but out of reasons beyond the companys control.

Schlichmann was mostly worried that he would lose the case over the opposition just because he did not have expert knowledge in medicine. The experts were knowledgeable and could convince the jury to find the companies innocent of the charges.

References

Walker, D. (1980). The oxford companion to law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Some court cases may require the services of an expert to enable the jurors and judges to have a better understanding of the underlying principles of the case(s) in question. An expert witness is an individual who has certain specialised skills, knowledge, training and experience in a certain field that goes beyond the knowledge of the rest of the members of the public (Kuchler, 2010, p. 152). He/she is an unbiased person possessing technical knowledge and plays an important role in helping others understand the complexities of evaluating a given technicality or rather a process. An expert witness has several roles and his/her testimony must follow certain principles to gain the jurors/judges acceptability.

Attorneys hire expert witnesses to fulfil certain roles. An expert witness can act as an attorneys confidential consultant (Kuchler, 2010, p. 153). In such a case, the expert reviews the materials necessary for a trial. Additionally, he/she assesses the materials and explains their meaning to the attorney. This helps the attorney to have a concrete understanding of the core aspects of a given case (William, 2002, p. 27). If an expert witness acts as a confidential consultant, he/she may not appear in court. Expert witnesses can also assume the role of a general expert. This requires the expert witness to integrate numerous technical disciplines and assist the attorney in managing the process (Eric & Sibony, 2008, p. 950). The expert can assist the attorney in brainstorming, developing certain important strategies as well as identifying certain technical issues in a given case (Donald, 1996, p. 943). The third role of an expert witness is to provide his/her testimony in the courtroom-as a testifying expert witness. Generally, the purpose of an expert testimony is to clear up some fuzzy facts or even strengthen inferences that might be confusing the jury. According to Yoder, the expert testimony enhances the jurys understanding of the facts of a case (1998, p. 18). It also helps to point out a cases flaws and weaknesses that might not be clear to the jury as they may be to the counsel (Freckleton & Selby, 1999, p. 32). These roles of an expert witness occur in all types of cases.

Due to the increasing trend of cybercrimes, there is an increased need for expert witness in the field of information technology. Most jurors/judges do not have the required knowledge to deal with cases involving cybercrimes due to their complexity. In such cases, an expert in software development and installation, networking and other related technological aspects are essential in assisting in the prosecution of cybercriminals. However, according to Date, there is a shortage of expert witnesses when it comes to cases regarding cybercrimes (1999, p. 14). Many states have embarked on training individuals in this field to boost the number of expert witnesses in cybercrime cases. For instance, the US government has spent billions of dollars in finding, training as well as retaining the right people to act as expert witnesses as a means to boost cyber security. The FBIs National Infrastructure Protection Centre offers training in basic computer investigations, Unix for investigation, networking as well as advanced intrusion detection (Smith, 2011, p. 16). The US, among other states, is also training more people in software development and installation, which is instrumental in increasing the number of expert witnesses.

There are several principles that govern expert testimony. The expert should provide the details of the facts as well as assumptions that he/she made in coming up with his/her opinion (Griffith & Tengnah, 2010, p. 544). The expert testimony or rather evidence should be the independent product of the expert witness-there should be no external influence on the evidence that the expert provides in the courtroom. Additionally, the expert witness should communicate on the reliability of his/her testimony (Bronnit & McSherry, 2001, p. 66). In cases where the expert witness failed to carry out detailed research on his/her opinion due to unavailability of sufficient data, the expert should bring this to the attention of the court, with the indication that his/her opinion is merely provisional (Imwenkelried, 2005, p. 199). The expert testimony should not be biased, recklessly devised, or even contain any form of dishonesty. According to Richard, Kirsten and Martin, sometimes an expert witness may change his/her opinion after the exchange of reports with the other participants in a given case (2007, p. 16). If that occurs, the expert should communicate the change to the other side immediately through acceptable legal representatives and if necessary, to the court.

In giving his/her testimony, the expert witness should always clarify to the jury when a question or an issue falls outside his/her area of expertise (Hamilton, 2003, p. 72). In addition, expert witnesses should base their testimony on generally accepted technological and scientific principles relevant to the given field. There must be some evidence to prove the validity as well as the reliability of the techniques that an expert uses in his/her testimony (Redding, Floyd, & Hawk, 2001, p. 2001). According to Frankel (2000), expert witnesses should base their testimony on sufficient facts and data (p. 17). This strengthens the reliability of the testimony.

In conclusion, expert witnesses have several roles. They can act as attorneys confidential consultants, general experts or as testifying experts. Expert witnesses seek to help other members of the public to understand certain principles and facts that are beyond their knowledge in dealing with criminal cases. Following the above discussion, expert witnesses need to put into consideration the principles that govern expert testimony in courtrooms.

References

Bronnit, S., & McSherry, B. (2001). Principles of Criminal Rule. Sydney: LBC Information Service. 23-35.

Date, S. (1999). FBI Trains its Security Team in Advanced IT Skills. Government Computer News, 18(37), 14-18.

Donald, B. (1996). On Filling the Role of Expert Witness. Consulting to Management, 9(2), 37-41.

Eric, B., & Sibony, A. (2008). Expert Evidence before the EC Courts. Common Market Law Review, 45(4), 941-985.

Frankel, M. (2000). The Evolving Role of Scientific Experts in the Courts. The Journal of Philosophy, Science and Law, 1, 16-20.

Freckleton, I., & Selby, H. (1999). Expert Witness in Criminal Law. Sydney: LBC Information Service. 30-45.

Griffith, R., & Tengnah, C. (2010). Principles of Good Evidence. British Journal of Community Nursing, 15(11), 542-546.

Hamilton, R, (2003). Marketing Your Professional Expertise to Attorneys. Chemical Engineering Progress, 5, 71-74.

Imwenkelried, E.S. (2005). Expert Testimony by Ethicists: What Should be the Norm?. The Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 33(2), 198-211.

Kuchler, D. D. (2010). An in-depth Look at Direct Examination of an Expert Witness. FDCC Quarterly, 60(20, 151-170.

Redding, R.E., Floyd, M.Y., & Hawk, G.L. (2001). What Judges and Lawyers Think About the Testimony of Mental Health Experts: A Survey of the Courts and Bar. Behavioural Sciences and Law, 19(4), 583-594.

Richard, W.A., Kirsten, D.A., & Martin, A.A. (2007). A Tripartite Solution to Eyewitness Era. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 1 (5), 12-20.

Smith, J. (2011). Cyber Security Experts Wanted Here. National Journal, 12(1), 15-21.

William, B. (2002). An Expert Witness Can Make or Break a Case. Life and Health, 106(44), 26-28.

Yoder, S. D. (1998). The Nature of Ethical Expertise. The Hasting Centre Report, 28, 11-19.

An increased recognition that the United States criminal justice structure was being overwhelmed with people suffering from psychological diseases during the 1980s triggered the need of alternative incarceration approaches. The initial problem-solving courts for offenders diagnosed with mental health illnesses was developed in 1980 in Marion County, Florida (Fister, 2015). This court offered service to persons with severe mental health diseases facing minor felony charges or non-aggressive misdemeanors. The Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health later developed a forensic mental health court (MHC) diversion program that offered consultation services to courts on the management of criminals with psychiatric illnesses (Fister, 2015). The initial MHC was developed in 1997 in Broward County, Florida, following the drug courts incapacity to address mental health needs among clients with psychological issues such as recurrent substance use (Maschi & Leibowitz, 2018). The paper provides an in-depth discussion about the rationale for the courts inception and describes facts associated with MHCs.

The Rationale for the Court

The U.S criminal justice structure has long identified the incidence of mental health problems in the corrections populace. According to a survey by the U.S Bureau of Justice Statistics, approximately sixty-two and fifty percent of jail and prison inmates respectively reported suffering from a psychiatric disorder at a particular period (Lowder et al., 2017). Mental health courts were created to curb or control psychological illnesses among justice-involved persons. It was established following the recognition that the regions drug court was deficient in the essential mental health services needed by candidates with recurring substance use and psychological illnesses. These courts underscore rehabilitation as opposed to penalties to foster resistance from offensive behavior. The overall goal of the mental health courts is to minimize the rates of incarceration.

MHC and Client Selection

Mental health courts have multiple defining features, including

• Specialized case dockets typified by defendants with psychological illness;
• A non-adversarial and collaborative team consisting of a mental health representative, defense and prosecuting attorneys, and a judge (Maschi & Leibowitz, 2018);
• A connection to a local psychiatric health system;
• Some types of compliance or adherence monitoring, with penalties for non-conformance.

Some arrested people with psychological illnesses are provided the option or choice of participating in the MHC in lieu of conventional court processing or procedures, plead innocence or guilt, and sentenced if found culpable (Canada & Ray, 2016). Mental health courts clients may forgo delinquent processing altogether, receive an unconventional or alternative convenient sentence for engaging and finishing the MHC program, or undergo malefactor processing but go without sentencing.

The eligibility criteria for MHCs usually require that the offenders have a mental disorder, which may or may not be identified as persistent, chronic, or severe and non-violent criminal charges, commonly categorized as misdemeanors. The screening, identification, and recruitment of these cases is less clear. Prospective individuals may be referred to the MHC by a prosecutor, police officer, jail personnel, judge, treatment provider, family member, or defense attorney. They might be formally screened by the case coordinator or court team with psychiatric health training with or without the help of a mental health professional (Lowder et al., 2017). The formalization of data utilized to ascertain eligibility may be done via screening protocol, or it can be informal and particular or specific to an individual or team. Even after being considered a suitable candidate for the MHC, issues such as conviction, motivation, treatability, and support from the defense attorney and victims may independently influence clients recruitment and selection. The convergence of all these aspects during the selection procedure predicts the differences in client pools among mental health courts.

Components and Goals of MHCs

The Council of State Governments Justice Center developed ten crucial MHC elements that promote best practices. They include

• Administration and planning. This feature incorporates stakeholders who represent the criminal justice structure, SUD therapy practitioners, psychiatric health treatment professionals, and others who guide or direct the courts planning;
• Target populace. It underscores the eligibility criteria, which aims to address public safety using the courts therapy capacity and the connection between criminality and mental health;
• Timely identification and service linkage. At this stage, participants are distinguished, accepted, and redirected from incarceration;
• Informed decision. Offenders should be fully knowledgeable of the conditions for engagement and are offered legal counsel.
• Treatment services and supports. Clients are linked to individualized therapy services;
• Confidentiality. The clients legal and health data gathered during the treatment procedure ought to be protected.
• Court team. Proper training should be offered to the criminal justice team, treatment providers, and mental health experts;
• Monitoring compliance to court mandates. Collaboration between court staff is crucial to ensure participants effective monitoring. According to Loong et al. (2016), they typically provide graduated sanctions and incentives;
• Sustainability. Information is often gathered and evaluated to gauge the effect of the court, facilitate the institutionalization of court procedures, and cultivate community support.

Problem-solving courts, for instance, MHCs, often recognize the importance of therapy coupled with rehabilitation amid the justice-involved populace, and case managers act as a liaison between probation officers and treatment providers. In this way, mental health courts prioritize a highly rehabilitative setting with less punitive sanctions. Establishing the successful termination of involvement in MHCs, according to Lowder et al. (2017), is difficult because overcoming a psychiatric condition varies significantly among individuals. Common MHC goals include improving the safety of the public, bettering the life quality of the people suffering from psychological illness, and minimizing corrections and court-related costs by diverting individuals from incarceration.

Some studies identify therapeutic jurisprudence as another specific goal and an integral component of MHCs. According to Canada and Ray (2016), therapeutic jurisprudence is an inquiry field that focuses on the notion that legal procedures, rules, and the department of licit actors may have corrective impacts for offenders. MHCs implement the aforementioned practice by reducing punishment, i.e., anti-treatment consequences, and increasing room for self-actualization and empowerment.

Effectiveness of Mental Health Courts as an ATI/Treatment Court

Despite the increasing prominence of MHCs in the U.S over the past decade, there is no definitive proof of their efficacy. Studies on this topic associate MHCs with positive outcomes (Maschi & Leibowitz, 2018). However, other surveys reveal mixed findings prospectively due to the variations in outcome computations and the rigorous nature of the selected methodologies.

Measuring Recidivism

Since MHCs overall objective is to minimize criminality among individuals suffering from psychiatric health diseases and elevate the safety of the public, recidivism is recognized as the favored measure for evaluating the programs efficacy. According to Lowder et al. (2017), two studies uncovered MHCs efficiency in reducing recidivism risk; however, this impact might only be modest. Another research involving nine Illinois MHCs revealed that fifty-three percent of the participants were arrested for misdemeanor or felony within three years following their MHC enrollment. Reverting outcomes related to MHCs may be synonymous with those of regulated probation. One research conducted in Illinois involving probation participants indicated that fifty-four percent were rearrested within four years after completing probation (Loong et al., 2016). These findings were also echoed by a review involving MHC candidates in Broward County. Both studies did not identify any statistically significant variation in first-year rearrest incidences between MHC and standard probation participants.

On the contrary, another research revealed that while both groupings experienced a decline in the yearly rearrest rate, the recorded decrease amid MHC participants were substantially significant. This phenomenon was common among MHC offenders who had attained high life quality scores and had finished the project (Fisler, 2015). An assessment of MHCs located in Michigan linked the successful completion of the program and high life quality scores with a reduced probability of participants involvement in new offenses. The aforementioned finding was supported by another analysis that exhibited that individuals who did not finish their MHC project were 3.7 times more likely to revert to their old ways than the people who did (Loong et al., 2016). A survey by Canada and Ray (2016) further revealed that MHC participation triggered individuals engagement in mental health and life, improved relations, sobriety, and better psychiatric stability. MHC offenders with specific criminal histories, such as driving-related crimes, trespassing, and drug and alcohol use, are highly prone to recidivism compared to others.

Conclusion

The first MHC was established following the recognition that the regions drug court was deficient in the essential mental health services needed by candidates with recurring substance use and psychological illnesses. The current research body on MHCs reveals their significance in yielding positive outcomes, both in enhancing participants life quality and minimizing recidivism. Improving and reinforcing public safety through decreasing criminality is the primary mental health courts goal. Offenders with higher life quality scores and those who have completed the program successfully are unlikely to revert comparing to their counterparts.

References

Canada, K. E. & Ray, B. (2016). Mental health court participants perspectives of success: What key outcomes are we missing?International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 15(4), 352361. Web.

Fisler, C. (2015). Towards a new understanding of mental health courts. The Judges Journal, 54(2), 813.

Lowder, E. M., Rade, C. B., & Desmarais, S. L. (2017). Effectiveness of mental health courts in reducing recidivism: A meta-analysis.Psychiatric Services, 69(1), 1522. Web.

Loong, D., Bonato, S., & Dewa, C. S. (2016). The effectiveness of mental health courts in reducing recidivism and police contact: A systematic review protocol.Systematic Reviews, 5, 123. Web.

Maschi, T., & Leibowitz, G. S. (Eds.). (2018). Forensic social work: Psychosocial and legal issues across diverse populations and settings (2^nd ed.). Springer Publishing.