Discrimination against offenders with mental disorder

BACKGROUND

Mentally disordered offenders may suffer discrimination on the basis of mental disorder, or on the basis of being offenders, or both.

AIMS

The aim of this paper is to outline a framework for examining discrimination affecting mentally disordered offenders. It is argued that there should be systematic comparisons between offenders with mental disorder and nonoffenders with mental disorder in order to identify and characterise specific failures to ensure equivalence of mental health care; and systematic comparisons between offenders with mental disorder and offenders without mental disorder in order to identify how mental disorder may constitute a barrier to forms of support and constructive intervention available to other offenders.

METHODS

A critical review was conducted of official documents presenting criminal justice and mental health policy for England and Wales, principally since 2012, together with reports of inspectorate and oversight bodies and relevant research studies.

FINDINGS

There is evidence that offenders with mental disorder may not be able to access mental health care equivalent to that for nonoffenders with mental disorder. There is also evidence that they may not be able to access interventions available to other offenders. Further disadvantage may arise in the criminal courts since, in England and Wales, if inpatient care is required, the powers of criminal courts to effect hospital admission under Part III of mental health legislation are weakened by the statutory requirement of information that places are available. This is discriminatory against offenders with mental disorder insofar as forms of court disposal for other offenders are not prevented by the capacity of criminal justice agencies.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The review supports the need for systematic comparisons to identify forms of disadvantage and discrimination experienced by mentally disordered offenders in relation to both mental health and criminal justice policies services.

In conversation with John Gunn

John Gunn CBE retired as Professor of Forensic Psychiatry at the Institute of Psychiatry, London in 2002. In February 2003 he agreed to an unrehearsed interview at the Annual Meeting of the Forensic Psychiatry Faculty in Glasgow. He was interviewed by Adrian Grounds.

Forensic psychiatry and public protection

The prominence of risk in UK social and criminal justice policy creates opportunities, challenges and dangers for forensic psychiatry. The future standing of the specialty will depend not only on the practical utility of its responses to those opportunities and challenges, but also the ethical integrity of those responses.

Cross-cultural clinical judgment bias in personality disorder diagnosis by forensic psychiatrists in the UK: a case-vignette study

Previous research in the UK has suggested that cross-cultural bias in personality disorder diagnosis might partly account for the smaller proportion of Black, relative to White, patients with personality disorder in secure psychiatric hospitals. Using the case-vignette method, we investigated cross-cultural clinical judgment bias in the diagnosis of personality disorder in African Caribbean men by 220 forensic psychiatrists in the UK. In the vignette describing possible DSM-IV antisocial personality disorder, Caucasians were 2.8 times more likely to be given a diagnosis of personality disorder than African Caribbeans. Diagnosis also varied according to the ethnicity of the clinicians. No cross-cultural bias was found in the vignette describing possible DSM-IV borderline personality disorder. These findings are important in relation to recent policies for offenders and others with personality disorder, and to the current focus on delivering race equality in mental health services in the UK. Ongoing debates about the strengths and limitations of the case-vignette method are also discussed.

Forensic psychiatry and political controversy

This article gives a U.K.-based perspective on the involvement of forensic psychiatry organizations in questions of political controversy. Medical professional bodies are fundamentally concerned to uphold good standards of clinical practice and patient welfare, and to uphold professional medical ethics. In our specialty, when acting as individual expert witnesses, we seek to serve the courts with objectivity and respect for the law. However, as members of our professional bodies we have a legitimate medical concern about how the law affects the mentally disordered as a class. We should articulate a collective view about what treating the mentally disordered justly and appropriately in the legal system means and should challenge the law when it fails to achieve this.

Psychotic men remanded in custody to Brixton Prison

All referrals to medical officers in Brixton Prison over a five-month period in 1989 were examined. This paper reports the progress through this remand prison of those men who were considered to be suffering from a major psychiatric disorder. Many men had been charged with relatively minor offences. The net effect of medical intervention was to delay release from custody. Because of the administrative delays inherent in the system of medical referral and hospital admission under section 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983, it was those prisoners who were most ill who tended to remain in prison for the longest periods. Judged in terms of its efficiency to ensure speedy treatment for mentally ill remanded offenders, the present system is regarded as cumbersome and extremely inefficient. It is suggested that greater use should be made of section 48 of the 1993 Act to divert mentally ill, remanded offenders from prison.

A follow-up of remanded mentally ill offenders given court hospital orders

A follow up study of 101 men who were remanded to Brixton prison and who were given hospital orders by courts is reported. In 93% of cases the hospitals who responded to our enquiries reported that the admission had been appropriate. Only 5 (11%) of the 46 men who had been discharged from hospital had absconded or discharged themselves without medical approval. The process of referral and admission to hospital resulted in these men having to spend, on average, between two and three times longer in custody when compared to men charged with similar offences. It is generally recognized that the acutely ill should not be imprisoned, and encouragement has been given to the diversion of such people from the Criminal Justice System. However, London presents particular problems in this respect and it is argued that, since such problems will always be present, there is a need for special psychiatric facilities to be opened in order to serve the needs of the Capital.

Remands and psychiatric assessments in Holloway. Prison II: The non-psychotic population

Non-psychotic remand prisoners who were referred by Holloway's doctors to outside psychiatrists, or who were the subject of court reports, or who were diagnosed as mentally handicapped, were followed up to the time of sentence. Most of the referred women were minor offenders with diagnoses of mental handicap or personality disorder. They were usually refused beds on treatability criteria and then released with non-custodial sentences. Some were highly disturbed, and it seemed that the police who charged them, the courts who remanded them and the prison psychiatrists who referred them, all found it hard to accept that psychiatry had so little to offer these people. Local health and social services need to address the problems raised by this small group of women. Arsonists more often obtained beds than minor offenders, and were likely to be imprisoned when hospital places were not forthcoming.

Remands and psychiatric assessments in Holloway Prison. I: The psychotic population

Remand prisoners diagnosed as psychotic by Holloway's psychiatrists were followed up to time of sentence. Most were referred to outside psychiatrists and then offered beds. Courts invariably enabled the beds to be used. Few women had committed serious offences, and most had been remanded because the courts thought they needed help. The study showed custodial remands to be an unsatisfactory way of seeking treatment for psychotic offenders. Alternatives need to be developed urgently. For psychotic people who continue to be remanded in custody, transfers rather than court orders should initially be used to effect admission.

On describing mental states

The later work of Wittgenstein was a major contribution to the philosophy of mind. One theme in his writings was a critique of the assumption that reports of psychological experience in ordinary language can be regarded as descriptions of inner states and processes. Some implications of this critique for our understanding of descriptive psychopathology and the use of psychological models in psychiatry are examined.

The psychiatrist in court

Psychiatric evidence may be required on a variety of issues in different courts. Psychiatrists in court face ethical dilemmas, and psychiatric evidence can be misused. Good preparation for cross-examination and a proper understanding of the limits of professional expertise are needed.

Transient psychoses in anorexia nervosa: a report of 7 cases

Seven cases of anorexia nervosa associated with a brief psychotic episode are described. The psychoses all resolved completely and were similar in their atypical form. In 5 cases an organic cause could not be established, but psychological stress may have been an aetiological factor.