Judicial perspectives on mental health courts: The role of psychiatric disorder and violence risk

Abstract

Objective: The extent to which psychiatric diagnosis, treatment compliance, and violence risk influenced judges perceived benefits of Mental Health Court ("MHC") for defendants with psychiatric disorders was examined.

Method: 81 judges completed one vignette in which psychiatric diagnosis (Schizophrenia, Major Depressive Disorder, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder), treatment compliance (yes/no), and violence risk (high/low) were randomized. The online survey was distributed via email and following the vignette, judges answered a question about the appropriateness of MHC.

Results: Judges assessed defendants with severe psychiatric disorders (Schizophrenia and Major Depressive Disorder) - compared to defendants with PTSD - as more likely to benefit from MHCs. If deemed at low treatment compliance and/or high violence risk, judges were unlikely to appraise MHCs as beneficial, regardless of psychiatric diagnosis.

Implications: Judges appear to consider relevant factors when determining whether MHC will benefit defendants with psychiatric disorders; however, future research should include more variables (e.g., addictions, history of violence) to examine the combined influence on judges' perception of MHC suitability.