Almquist, L. & Dodd, E. (2009). Mental health courts: A guide to research-informed policy and practice. Council of State Governments Justice Center. New York, New York. https://bit.ly/41GJ9GV

Mental health courts generally share the following goals: to improve public safety by reducing criminal recidivism; to improve the quality of life of people with mental illnesses and increase their participation in effective treatment; and to reduce court- and corrections-related costs through administrative efficiencies and often by providing an alternative to incarceration.

https://bit.ly/41GJ9GV (pg V, Executive Summary)

This is a post all about mental health courts and how they are completely, irrevocably, horrrifically TERRIBLE to people with SMI and GMH/SU diagnoses.

In Arizona, there was a class action suit called Arnold v Sarn that was written originally in 1981, and won in 1986. It sued Maricopa County for not providing adequate community mental health services to people. In 2014, it was overturned.

My dilemma is that it shouldn’t have been overturned in any capacity. The wording of the document that allowed the case to become overturned is the exact wording that allowed police to take my symptoms as evidence of violence.

I am not a lawyer.

But I am smart enough to know when my rights are violated and how. And this was only a small piece of the puzzle in assessing where courts abuse their power against SMI defendants.

In multiple peer reviewed research articles, data demonstrate the importance of my advocacy: my diagnosis was questioned because I was too educated and too financially stable to legally qualify under the court’s guidance as SMI.

Data show that being a woman, having prior inpatient mental health hospitalizations, receiving diagnoses in the psychotic spectrum (or taking medication for such symptom profiles), and getting misdemeanor charges are all indicators of SMI cases and diagnoses. The one thing I missed? I was above a high school diploma, or above even a high school dropout, as many of the SMI cases end up being, when data is compiled.

My issue with the courts is that they don’t use data logically to anyone’s advantage but their own.

This isn’t news.

It’s not rocket science.

But in mental health, it’s much harder to prove.

I showed up to court in a nice dress with nice shoes and looked like I made good money. I alerted the court that I could be badgered into being scared by them in that alone. They know the game.

See, data show that SMI cases aren’t encouraged to be dismissed in court settings anymore.

The new, trendy thing is to refer SMI people to mental health court where they (supposedly) get access to treatment and care for their mental health diagnosis. But data show that mental health courts often fail to connect people with long term care and services, leading to high rates of risk and rehospitalization. It’s disgusting.

Because the reality?

Mental health courts determine that mental health not only caused the criminal behavior, but that police brutality and qualified immunity come before civil rights. Again, not news that courts actively deny people civil rights, including ADA protections. But it still is one of the issues that people don’t understand perpetuates daily life.

This issue leads to mentally ill people, who often were badgered into saying something to get police to leave them the fuck alone, into criminal charges based on coerced and falsely obtained words. Then the courts say, “Well, police never would do that to someone; they have better values than systemic discrimination.”

So the courts say, “If you really want mental health treatment, you have to do our criminal setencing for our wrongs first.”

The kicker? The follow up treatment is from providers often unprepared for the trauma of seeing someone being told all of this. Most clinical staff don’t believe that legal systems treat people this way. Legalese markets themselves as better than that; so who are clinical mental health staff to pass judgment on unqualified mental health professionals when making faulty clinical mental health judgments?

In fact, religion is much the same.

But that’s a post for another day.

In short, mental health courts claim they help people. But diverting people into mandated treatment from unqualified and unprepared practitioners because you want to “gotcha” them for “you played us; we can play you better” is a farce of a court system.

Are we innocent until proven guilty?

Or are we guilty unless priviledged under the law?

XOXO,

Dorothy B.