Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 9:00 pm
Time: 9:00 pm
Results for sentencing, mentally ill offenders
1 results foundAuthor: Khanom, Husnara Title: A Missed Opportunity? Community Sentences and the Mental Health Treatment Requirement Summary: The Mental Health Treatment Requirement (MHTR) is one of 12 options (‘requirements’) available to sentencers when constructing a Community Order or a Suspended Sentence Order. The MHTR can be given to an offender with mental health problems who does not require immediate compulsory hospital admission under the Mental Health Act. If they give their consent, the MHTR requires them to receive mental health treatment for a specified period. At least 40% of offenders on Community Orders are thought to have a diagnosable mental health problem. Yet there has been very little uptake of the MHTR in England and Wales since its introduction in 2005. Only 686 MHTRs commenced in the year to 30 June 2008 out of a total of 221,700 requirements issued with Community Orders across the country. This compares with 12,347 requirements for drug rehabilitation and 3,846 for alcohol treatment. This report is based on an exploratory research project; the first to examine the way in which the Mental Health Treatment Requirement is issued and the processes involved. We interviewed 56 professionals working in the courts, in probation and in health services about their experiences and knowledge of the MHTR. Appropriate use of the MHTR depends on probation officers, defence solicitors and psychiatrists all being both familiar with and confident in using it. Our interviews have indicated that this is far from being the case in practice. Many professionals lacked direct experience of the MHTR, and some were not aware of it at all. Court and probation professionals varied widely in their knowledge of mental health issues and their confidence in dealing with them. Many did not feel the courts should get involved in mental health issues. Professionals had varied views about the purpose of the MHTR. Some felt it should help offenders who had fallen out of touch with mental health services to get back into contact. Others thought this was inappropriate, or that the MHTR should only be considered where mental illness had led the person to commit the offence of which they had been convicted. The criteria for who should receive an MHTR were not clear to the professionals we interviewed. Many felt that the MHTR was not suitable for people with personality disorders or those with depression or anxiety. The biggest barrier to the creation of an MHTR is the need for a formal psychiatric report. These are subject to lengthy delays as well as difficulties with costs. Some psychiatric reports do not provide the offer of treatment from local mental health services that is vital for the creation of an MHTR. Once an MHTR has begun, the main concern among professionals is about how to determine when an offender has breached the requirement and how to manage this. Missed appointments were widely held to constitute a breach of the MHTR, but non-compliance with treatment was more contested. Many court professionals were concerned about the impact of making an MHTR more onerous if it was breached. The MHTR relies on good communication between the courts, probation and health services. Poor communication between health and probation services can hinder its effectiveness. Yet the court diversion and liaison teams that we encountered rarely played an active role in the operation of the MHTR. For offenders with a dual diagnosis of drug misuse and mental health problems, the courts were much more likely to make a Drug Rehabilitation Requirement (DRR) than an MHTR. This is because they are more familiar with the DRR, it has a dedicated staff team and the process for making and managing a DRR is clearer. Despite the challenges presented by the MHTR, we conclude that it has unfulfilled potential to offer offenders with mental health problems a robust alternative to a short prison sentence. That potential can be harnessed through practical improvements to the way the MHTR works on the ground and through improved communication between health and criminal justice agencies. Our recommendations include: Central government should provide practical guidance for criminal justice and health professionals on how to construct and manage MHTRs. Primary care trusts should commission services that enable the courts to issue MHTRs. The National Offender Management Service should provide detailed information for probation officers on how to manage the MHTR. Protocols need to be developed between the courts, probation and health services to enable the appropriate use of the MHTR. Diversion and liaison schemes should be involved in the MHTR to organise timely psychiatric reports and make sentencing recommendations. Details: London: Sainsbury Centre for Mental health, 2009. 46p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 1, 2012 at: http://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/pdfs/Missed_Opportunity.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/pdfs/Missed_Opportunity.pdf Shelf Number: 113925 Keywords: Drug TreatmentMental Health TreatmentMentally Ill Offenders (U.K.)Sentencing, Mentally Ill Offenders |