Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Court diversion in perspective.

David V James1

  • 1North London Forensic Service, Camlet 3, Chase Farm Hospital Campus, The Ridgeway, Enfield, UK. david.james5@ntlworld.com

The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry
|June 8, 2006
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Threats to public figures and association with approach, as a proxy for violence: The importance of grievance.

Frontiers in psychology·2022
Same author

The Phenomenology of Group Stalking ('Gang-Stalking'): A Content Analysis of Subjective Experiences.

International journal of environmental research and public health·2020
Same author

Fixated Threat Assessment Centers: preventing harm and facilitating care in public figure threat cases and those thought to be at risk of lone-actor grievance-fueled violence.

CNS spectrums·2020
Same author

A 21st century truism.

BJPsych bulletin·2017
Same author

Outcome and Efficacy of Interventions by a Public Figure Threat Assessment and Management Unit: A Mirrored Study of Concerning Behaviors and Police Contacts Before and After Intervention.

Behavioral sciences & the law·2016
Same author

Protesting loudly about Prevent is popular but is it informed and sensible?

BJPsych bulletin·2016

Court diversion programs, offering psychiatric interventions, are expanding internationally. These schemes aim to improve mental health care for individuals within the justice system.

Area of Science:

  • Forensic Psychiatry
  • Legal Psychology

Background:

  • Court diversion schemes have operated in New Zealand for a decade and are increasing in Australia.
  • This paper provides international and historical context for these developments, examining psychiatric initiatives in courts in the US, England, and Wales over the past 90 years.

Observation:

  • Three forms of psychiatric intervention in courts are reviewed: US court psychiatric clinics, US mental health courts, and UK court diversion schemes.
  • High rates of psychiatric morbidity among prisoners and increasing prison populations highlight the need for effective systems for mentally ill individuals in the justice system.

Findings:

  • UK court diversion evolved from a system of hospital admission for guilty mentally ill individuals, focusing on psychiatric triage and patient health.
  • US court psychiatric clinics originated as alternatives to prison assessments, emphasizing full psychiatric evaluation for insanity and incompetence, serving the court's needs.

Related Experiment Videos

  • US mental health courts, influenced by therapeutic jurisprudence, focus on judges managing minor offenders in community care via judicial sanctions.

    • Implications:

    • Court diversion in England and Wales has proven effective, requiring direct access to psychiatric beds (both open and locked) for successful operation.
    • Court diversion schemes are most effective as part of a comprehensive service spectrum for police, courts, and prisons, involving general and forensic psychiatrists.