| News | |
About Us | |
GP Editors | |
Get Published | |
Newsletter | |
Contact Us |
Home >> United States & Canada >> Courts & Laws Societal Misperception of Mentally Ill Offenders Marina Mazur, Ph.D. candidate - 11/17/2009 The dilemma of the mentally ill within the criminal justice system has been a pressing matter since the days of deinstitutionalization. Even though, the individual rights of the mentally ill have supposedly expanded, the treatment options have declined and community outreach is basically nonexistent. Instead of treating the mentally ill with medication and psychotherapy the society has decided to lock them up in a different institution, the prison. Thus, the mentally ill are perceived as doubly guilty. Not only do they have a mental disorder, but they are also seen as criminals. The social psychological concept of deindividuation helps to explain the current phenomena of imprisonment of the mentally ill. Stigmatization of people with mental disorders in our society is a well-known phenomenon. However, the mentally ill with a criminal record are in a double bind. Not only are they shunned due to their mental illness, but also due to their criminal past. To recognize the plight of the mentally ill within the society at large it is important to understand the concepts of deindividuation and dehumanization, societal misperception of the mentally ill and ex-convicts and treatment of the mentally ill offenders throughout history and at the present time. Deindividuation is a social psychological concept that explains discrimination, prejudice and stigmatization of different groups that exist within the mainstream society. One of these groups, currently discussed, represents those with mental illness. Philip Zimbardo (2007) in his Stanford Prison Experiment deindividuated the prisoners by assigning numbers instead of names, dressing them up in the same clothes and hiding their hair under nets. People do not feel the need to be just and act accordingly toward a person who has been deindividuated and who is not perceived as unique. Deindividuation made institutions different from other organizations and residences� (Johnson & Rhodes, 2007, p. 222). Dr. Zimbardo takes deindividuation a step further to describe dehumanization and its consequences. Where as deindividuation promotes anonymity, �dehumanization typically facilitates abusive and destructive actions toward those so objectified� (Zimbardo, 2007, p. 223). Any sort of power will become vicious in a situation where those without power are not viewed as individuals, but as a group as a whole. The society views those it does not know or understand as dangerous, thus, restricting itself from contact with these unfamiliar populations. Two constructs, familiarity and social distance, promote stigma within society. The less familiar a person is with someone with mental illness, the more dangerous he would perceive the mentally ill person to be, thus, enlarging the social distance between them and increasing the likelihood of avoidance of the mentally ill in the future. The same type of concept can be applied to criminals. Most people have never met someone who was imprisoned, so they are afraid of everyone who was ever charged with any crime. �Members of the general public who have greater knowledge about or experience with mental illness are less likely to stigmatize� (Corrigan, Green, Lundin, Kubiak & Penn, 2001, p. 956). Unfortunately, most of the information that people receive about mental illness is through media, which usually portrays the mentally ill as dangerous, thus promoting stigma (Corrigan et al., 2001). Media�s portrayal of ex-convicts is just as stigmatizing toward that population as it is toward the mentally ill. Therefore, mentally ill offenders are in a double bind: they are viewed as dangerous and are stigmatized due to their illness and their criminal past. The only way to fight this stigma is by increasing familiarity between the mentally ill and the general population and by decreasing social distance. Historically the mentally ill have been institutionalized in mental health facilities and hospitals to get them out of sight of the general population. �In the last half of the 19th century, there was a growing perception that it was society, not the institutional residents, that required protection� (Johnson & Rhodes, 2007, p. 220). The intention of asylums was to rehabilitate and resocialize far from the temptations of the city and away from others. Deindividuation promoted institutialization by having a large number of residents, high level of regimentation and an abusive physical and social environment (Johnson & Rhodes, 2007). The individual rights within the institutions were ignored and the society was protected by taking the mentally ill off the streets and by placing them behind tall fences, so they are not able to escape. Most residents, who stayed in an institution for a long period of time, suffered from a syndrome called institutionalism, which is characterized by �apathy, lethargy, passivity, and the muting of self-initiative, compliance and submissiveness, dependence on institutional structure and contingencies, social withdrawal and isolation, an internalization of the norms of the institutional culture, and a diminished sense of self-worth and personal value� (Johnson & Rhodes, 2007, p. 226). In the late 1960�s and early 1970�s the negative aspects of institutialization and severe abuse of individual rights were recognized and the deinstitutialization movement arose. Deinstitutionalization was supposed to be the greatest solution to the growing trends in mental health care, which included increasing public awareness to the negative effects of institutionalization, rising costs of institutional care and scientific discoveries within the mental health spectrum. However, �what was originally conceptualized as a solution to institutionalization eventually became a problem in and of itself. An example of failure of deinstitutionalization for mentally ill people is the large numbers who are incarcerated in jails and prisons with no provision for mental health services� (Johnson & Rhodes, 2007, p. 230-231). Criminalization became the societal answer to mental illness. Deinstitutialization of seriously mentally ill individuals has been the largest failed social experiment in twentieth-century America� (Torrey, 1995, p. 1612). Even though, deinstitutialization brought the people back home, the federal government and the society at large failed to provide adequate mental health services to keep the mentally ill healthy and to rehabilitate them back into the general population. For the past forty years the number of mentally ill inmates in prisons and jails have been increasing and those prisons have become the new mental hospitals and asylums. Factors responsible for the criminalization of the mentally ill include deinstitutialization and the unavailability of intermediate and long-term hospitalization; more formal and rigid criteria for civil commitment; the lack of adequate support systems for mentally ill persons in the community and access to mental health treatment� (Lamb, Weinberger & Gross, 2004, p. 109). Unfortunately, the police, who represent the law on the streets and make the arrests, are usually not trained to deal with the mentally ill. A person, who is mentally ill, may not appear so to the police. The mental illness might be perceived as alcohol or drug intoxication, and the in the heat of the situation and confusion of the encounter with the police the mental illness might go unnoticed (Lamb, Weinberger & Gross, 2004). Treatment of the mentally ill in jails and prisons is just as bad, if not worse, as it was in institutions. The prison itself is an institution that targets a different type of population, the criminals. However, the "bad" and the "mad" don't mix (Torrey, 1995, p.1612). The mistreatment of the mentally ill occurs both by other inmates and by the guards. Other inmates abuse the seriously mentally ill inmates and the guards perceive the mentally ill as more dangerous than other inmates, because they seem unpredictable. Mental health treatment is unavailable and half of those inmates that commit suicide in prisons have been previously diagnosed with a mental disorder (Torrey, 1995). By imprisoning the mentally ill all the disadvantages of institutionalization are empowered. As in the historical past protecting society is more important than helping the individual. Not only is deindividuation occurring due to the person�s mental health status, but now he/she is perceived as a dangerous criminal that should be contained. United States has become the world�s leader not only in incarceration of street criminals (Johnson & Rhodes, 2007), but also in incarceration of the mentally ill (Lamb, Weinberger & Gross, 2004). The solution to the problem of the mentally ill and the criminal justice system is to have comprehensive treatment programs with a treatment philosophy that balances individual rights and public safety and includes clear treatment goals (Lamb, Weinberger & Gross, 2004). Unfortunately, many challenges exist with treating the mentally ill offenders. These offenders might be resistant to treatment, mental health professionals might be afraid to treat offenders with mental disorders and the offenders might perceive the helping professionals as an extension of the justice system and not as their advocates (Lamb, Weinberger & Gross, 1999). However, these challenges can be overcome by identifying a good treatment philosophy and clear treatment goals. The treatment philosophy should balance the goals of the patient with the court requirements, a close relationship should exist between the treating professional and the criminal justice system, each should have access to the criminal and mental health records and emphasis should be placed on structure and supervision (Lamb, Weinberger & Gross, 1999). Mentally ill persons who have been incarcerated enter outpatient treatment while taking medication and may find themselves symptom free, in control of their violent impulses. After a while they may feel that they can succeed without medication; they discontinue its use, decompensate, and perhaps engage in violent behavior� (Lamb, Weinberger & Gross, 1999). Due to this frequent problem with the general mentally ill population, structured residential facilities should be available, where staff dispenses medication on a daily basis. This is especially important for mentally ill offenders, who exhibit violent tendencies. Positive treatment options are available and should be implemented to help the mentally ill become successful within the society instead of being locked away in asylums, mental hospitals or prisons. The mentally ill have been perpetually discriminated against within our society. They have been locked up for decades in institutions, experimented upon and imprisoned. The needs of society to protect itself from anything or anyone perceived as dangerous have trumped the needs of the mentally ill as individuals. Over time, however, psychologists have found ways to help them. Hopefully, eventually current scientific and psychological advices will be taken into consideration when establishing laws with regard to the treatment of the mentally ill on our communities. ReferencesCorrigan, P.W., Green, A., Lundin, R., Kubiak, M.A. & Penn, D.L. (2001). Familiarity with and social distance from people who have serious mental illness. Psychiatric Services, 52(7), 953-958. Earley, P. (2006). Crazy: A father�s search through America�s mental health madness. New York, NY: G. P. Putnam�s Sons. Johnson, M.M. & Rhodes, R. (2007). Institutionalization: A theory of human behavior and the social environment. Advances in Social Work, 8(1), 219-236. Lamb, H.R., Weinberger, L.E. & Gross, B.H. (1999). Community treatment of severely mentally ill offenders under the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system: A review. Psychiatric Services, 50(7), 907-913. Lamb, H.R., Weinberger, L.E. & Gross, B.H. (2004). Mentally ill persons in the criminal justice system: Some perspectives. Psychiatric Quarterly, 75(2), 107-126. Torrey, E.F. (1995). Editorial: Jails and prisons � America�s new mental hospitals. American Journal of Public Health, 85(12), 1611-1613. Zimbardo, P. (2007). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. New York, NY: Random House.
|
Email
Print