Showing papers by "John Monahan published in 1982"

Mentally disordered offenders: A national survey of patients and facilities.

Abstract: Persons believed both to be mentally ill and to have committed criminal behavior"mentally disordered offenders"' are enmeshed in a Byzantine pattern of relationships between mental health and correctional agencies, such that they often receive the worst that both systems have to offer (Kittrie, 1971; Wexler, 1976). As well, they confront forensic psychiatry and psychology with ethical dilemmas that defy easy resolution (Roth, 1980) and with demands for levels of predictive accuracy and treatment efficacy that appear to exceed the state of the mental health sciences in the present or foreseeable future (Steadman, 1980; Monahan, 1981). A confluence of several factors has served to highlight the salience of mentally disordered offenders to mental health and criminal justice agencies in recent years.

The Psychology of Law

Abstract: INTRODUCTION 442 SUBSTANTIVE LAW 443 Competence 443 To consent to treatment ........ ........ ...... 444 To waive rights 445 The Criminal Sanction ... ....... 445 Deterrence ....... ..... ... ........ ... ......... .... ....... ..... ..... ..... 446 Rehabilitation ......... ... ....... ..... ....... ..... ..... ..... 447 THE LEGAL PROCESS 447 Role Components 448 Jurors 448 Defendants. .•.••.•.•.•.• .•.•.•. ..••........ ..... .•.•. .•.•. ........ ... ......•. ...•. .•.•.•. ..... 449 Process Components 449 Evidence. . 449 Procedure ......... ..... ........ ..... ....... 450 Dec ision-rules 451 THE LEGAL SySTEM 452 Criminal Justice System 452 Mental Health System 453 Interactions Between Criminal Justice and Mental Health 455 RECURRING ISSUES 456 Questions 0/ Theory 456 Questions 0/ Method 459 Questions 0/ Influence 463 CONCLUSION 466

Stone-Roth Model of Civil Commitment and the California Dangerousness Standard: Operational Comparison

Abstract: • Professional opposition to making "dangerousness" the primary criterion for involuntary civil commitment has galvanized in support of the proposed "new medical model." The Stone-Roth criteria for commitment were applied to patients being committed under California's version of the dangerousness standard. Results showed that 86% of the patients committed under the California statute were viewed by the examining psychiatrists as committable under the Stone-Roth procedures as well.

Patients' Perceptions of the Family's Role in Involuntary Commitment

Abstract: Two theoretical frameworks have been proposed for understanding the relationship between family functioning and involuntary mental hospitalization: social control and social support. To more fully examine the family's role in involuntary commitment of a family member, the authors compared a group of 50 randomly chosen patients involuntarily admitted to a psychiatric emergency unit with a matched group of medical patients. They also compared family characteristics of patients released after brief observation with those of patients committed for a longer time. The results indicated that the family structure and relationships of the committed patients were less stable than those of medical patients. There were also significant differences between committed patients who were released after observation and those who were subsequently hospitalized, with families of the released patients perceived as exerting more control. The authors suggest that this finding can best be accounted for within a framework of soci...

Vitek and Beyond: The Empirical Context of Prison-to-Hospital Transfers

Abstract: In the 1980 case of Vitek v. Jones, the United States Supreme Court held that the transfer of a prison inmate to a mental hospital required an administrative hearing to determine whether the transfer was appropriate. This decision "broke new ground in the area of corrections law" since it concluded that "at least one change in a prisoner's status, by its very nature, could not be accomplished without some formal factfinding procedure."2 A recent and comprehensive analysis of Vitek precludes the necessity of reviewing the legal precedents or reasoning of the case here.3 The Supreme Court decided Vitek, however, without the benefit of any descriptive and analytic account of the empirical context in which decisions are made to transfer prisoners to mental hospitals. Without such information it is not possible to assess the extent to which Vitek addresses the central issues in the transfer process. This article, after summarizing the very limited existing research on the prison-to-mental hospital transfer process, presents the results of a study undertaken to fill that informational gap. The study gathered statistical data on the types of transfers that occur in six of the United States, the nature of the facilities to which prisoners are transferred, and the perceptions of the staff at the prisons and mental hospitals involved in the transfer of prisoners. One conclusion from this study is that Vitek must be read broadly as applying to the transfer of prisoners to mental health facilities operated by departments of corrections (DOCs), and not just to the transfer of prisoners to hospitals operated by departments of mental health (DMHs). This is essential