This article examines mental illness among adult, juvenile, male, female, jail, and prison inmates. It also explores the way in which mental health diagnoses impact offending and violent behavior. A review of literature pertaining to differences between the genders and age of offenders suggests that psychiatric disorders are more common among criminal offenders than the population at large. Furthermore, it appears that many mentally ill offenders do not receive sufficient treatment during their incarcerations and that barriers inherent to incarceration prevent adequate treatment of mental illnesses.

Mandated mental health treatment in the forms of inpatient and outpatient commitments is utilized to protect individuals from themselves or others from their potentially violent behavior. This entry outlines legal cases that have outlined that forced treatment is a liberty issue, even in the presence of a compelling government interest to force treatment. This entry also reviews specific mechanisms for treatment including mental health courts and even treatment occurring in the context of probation. Evidence supports the idea that mandated treatments are often most effective in the context of a supportive therapeutic relationships. Finally, this entry will focus on how the formation of new collaborations presents both clinical and research opportunities that were previously non‐existent and should be capitalized on as we develop new ideas how to make mandated treatment less invasive.

No abstract

Through a series of court cases, the right of mental health patients to receive treatment for their mental illness is well established. For instance, in Wyatt v. Stickney (1972) and O' Connor v. Donaldson (1975) the need for the state to provide treatment services was made explicit. Yet, within this treatment availability model, maintaining and protecting the rights of the consumer remains paramount. Relying on therapeutic jurisprudence, an appropriate balance can be provided between the right to treatment and mandated treatment. The article delineates both controversies and challenges associated with a right to treatment in juvenile offenders, sex offenders, and prisoners.

No abstract

Courts have consistently found that adults who are mentally competent have the right to refuse treatment, even if such treatment is considered in their best interests. Given the inherent complications that arise when trying to balance the best interests of patients with their right to refuse treatment, practitioners must be informed about the way in which this dilemma may influence their practice. The right to refuse treatment is viewed from the perspective of therapeutic jurisprudence, which maximizes the constitutional rights of individuals with mental illness. To improve our understanding of the right to refuse treatment, court cases addressing the right to refuse treatment are examined. We further discuss the influence of right to refuse on clinical practice. Specifically, we examine limits associated with the right to refuse including dangerousness, a compelling state interest, a grave medical need, and in some cases as a stipulation of parole. Finally, we provide key considerations regarding the right to refuse treatment relevant to both practitioners and legal advocates.

No abstract