Progressive justice in the twenty first century: Part four of a special NPI series
Disclaimer: All posts reflect my own personal views, and mine alone. In my regular job I am a supervising assistant city attorney (a prosecutor who is a manager) for the City of Seattle. I also serve as an adjunct professor of law at Seattle University School, teaching a course entitled "Law, Policy & Mental Health. But I don't speak for either the City or the Law School, or anyone within them.
If you've been following this series so far, the you know all you need to know to follow along with this part. I'd like to look at a day in the life of three typical MHC cases: one that originates at the booking/in-custody arraignment; one that has been in the court and the defendant is ready to be released on a trial run basis, and one who opts in fully to the court. Each example assumes that the person is competent to stand trial, and is capable of knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently signing a medical release of information (ROI).
Let's explore the in-custody arraignment, or first appearance. That is where most MHC referrals are made. The case would be set over from the morning jail calendar to the afternoon MHC calendar. The defendant would be arraigned and bail would be set just as it would in the jail, except that the location is a regular courtroom, which is much more respectful than the jail. The MHC liaison would talk with the defendant, as would the public defender handling that day's arraignments.
If the defendant is potentially a good fit for the court, he/she will be asked to sign a "release of information", or ROI. The ROI authorizes the defense and prosecution, along with the MHC liaison, defense social worker, to have access to and discuss the defendant's mental health situation and suitability for MHC in greater detail. The defendant has a choice of whether to sign an ROI. His or her choice to keep such personal information private will always be honored, but without that information the defendant will not be offered the possibility of MHC.
If things look good, the MHC liaison will begin putting together a release plan so that the defendant can be released from jail into clean and sober housing and mental health treatment. The case will be continued for a sufficient time to enable the MHC court liaison to make the proper arrangements. That may require that the defendant wait in jail. From the prosecution perspective, public safety is better protected by holding the defendant in jail until a stable release plan is in place. From the defendant's perspective, it may be better to wait for a stable release plan than to be released to the streets with no place to go and not treatment plan in place.
That brings us to the second example: the defendant who is ready for a trial run. Even if a beneficial release plan is in place, both prosecution and defense may want to see how the defendant would fare in mental health court before committing for the two-year probation period. For the prosecutor, the question is whether the defendant is a able to comply, which would justify offering MHC's benefits in exchange for a more creative case resolution. For the defense, it is better to learn in advance whether committing to MHC would be setting up the defendant to fail. The court liaison sets up "conditions of release", or CORs, which are similar to the conditions the defendant would abide by upon final resolution of the case.
We have now reached the third example: the defendant who, having done well on is ready to "opt in" to MHC by resolving the case. The defendant commits to two years of intensive monitoring, but also reaps the benefits of having MHPs on his or her side, helping to find housing and treatment, and navigating the difficulties of finding funding to pay for it all. The prosecution may require a guilty plea but request less jail time, or may offer a form of diversion in which the case is continued for two years and, if the defendant completes the conditions, the case is dismissed. For me personally as a prosecutor, I base my decision on a combination of what traditional prosecution concerns. On the traditional side, accountability for criminal behavior, public safety, and the need to have a person's criminal history reflect their criminal behavior. On the therapeutic justice side, a resolution that gives the defendant the best chance to succeed on probation, which will decrease the seriousness and/or frequency of the defendant's criminal behavior.
MHC is not a plea mill. Defendants who opt in sign on for a rigorous two years of monitored treatment. But one of the most fulfilling things than I get to see in MHC is a defendant "graduating" from the court. There is nothing more rewarding than to see rehabilitation work. Society benefits in terms of increased safety and reduced criminal behavior from the defendant, as well as its desire to act humanely. The defendant benefits by being able to live a better life outside of jail.
Given the population of defendants in MHC, it would be naive indeed to expect 100% compliance over a two year period. The next part in this series will explore what creative and therapeutic sanctions are available to meet everyone's goal of reducing the defendant's criminal behavior.
That's all for now.
If you've been following this series so far, the you know all you need to know to follow along with this part. I'd like to look at a day in the life of three typical MHC cases: one that originates at the booking/in-custody arraignment; one that has been in the court and the defendant is ready to be released on a trial run basis, and one who opts in fully to the court. Each example assumes that the person is competent to stand trial, and is capable of knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently signing a medical release of information (ROI).
Let's explore the in-custody arraignment, or first appearance. That is where most MHC referrals are made. The case would be set over from the morning jail calendar to the afternoon MHC calendar. The defendant would be arraigned and bail would be set just as it would in the jail, except that the location is a regular courtroom, which is much more respectful than the jail. The MHC liaison would talk with the defendant, as would the public defender handling that day's arraignments.
If the defendant is potentially a good fit for the court, he/she will be asked to sign a "release of information", or ROI. The ROI authorizes the defense and prosecution, along with the MHC liaison, defense social worker, to have access to and discuss the defendant's mental health situation and suitability for MHC in greater detail. The defendant has a choice of whether to sign an ROI. His or her choice to keep such personal information private will always be honored, but without that information the defendant will not be offered the possibility of MHC.
If things look good, the MHC liaison will begin putting together a release plan so that the defendant can be released from jail into clean and sober housing and mental health treatment. The case will be continued for a sufficient time to enable the MHC court liaison to make the proper arrangements. That may require that the defendant wait in jail. From the prosecution perspective, public safety is better protected by holding the defendant in jail until a stable release plan is in place. From the defendant's perspective, it may be better to wait for a stable release plan than to be released to the streets with no place to go and not treatment plan in place.
That brings us to the second example: the defendant who is ready for a trial run. Even if a beneficial release plan is in place, both prosecution and defense may want to see how the defendant would fare in mental health court before committing for the two-year probation period. For the prosecutor, the question is whether the defendant is a able to comply, which would justify offering MHC's benefits in exchange for a more creative case resolution. For the defense, it is better to learn in advance whether committing to MHC would be setting up the defendant to fail. The court liaison sets up "conditions of release", or CORs, which are similar to the conditions the defendant would abide by upon final resolution of the case.
We have now reached the third example: the defendant who, having done well on is ready to "opt in" to MHC by resolving the case. The defendant commits to two years of intensive monitoring, but also reaps the benefits of having MHPs on his or her side, helping to find housing and treatment, and navigating the difficulties of finding funding to pay for it all. The prosecution may require a guilty plea but request less jail time, or may offer a form of diversion in which the case is continued for two years and, if the defendant completes the conditions, the case is dismissed. For me personally as a prosecutor, I base my decision on a combination of what traditional prosecution concerns. On the traditional side, accountability for criminal behavior, public safety, and the need to have a person's criminal history reflect their criminal behavior. On the therapeutic justice side, a resolution that gives the defendant the best chance to succeed on probation, which will decrease the seriousness and/or frequency of the defendant's criminal behavior.
MHC is not a plea mill. Defendants who opt in sign on for a rigorous two years of monitored treatment. But one of the most fulfilling things than I get to see in MHC is a defendant "graduating" from the court. There is nothing more rewarding than to see rehabilitation work. Society benefits in terms of increased safety and reduced criminal behavior from the defendant, as well as its desire to act humanely. The defendant benefits by being able to live a better life outside of jail.
Given the population of defendants in MHC, it would be naive indeed to expect 100% compliance over a two year period. The next part in this series will explore what creative and therapeutic sanctions are available to meet everyone's goal of reducing the defendant's criminal behavior.
That's all for now.
# Posted by Michael : 1:46 AM
Comments:
Post a Comment