NCJ Number
109716
Date Published
1987
Length
10 pages
Annotation
This paper identifies some of the consequences of identifying intellectually disabled (ID) offenders with mentally ill offenders and suggests ways to remedy this false labeling.
Abstract
Until recently, it was not uncommon for an ID offender to be diverted to psychiatric treatment, usually hospitalization, as an alternative to arrest and police detention. The Victorian Mental Health Act of 1986 sought to eliminate this flawed diagnosis and treatment by mandating the separation of the mentally ill from the mentally retarded at admission to an institution. Unfortunately, the only alternative to admission to a mental health facility is imprisonment for ID offenders. Failure to distinguish between mentally ill and ID defendants has created injustices for ID defendants judged to be incompetent to stand trial based on presumed mental illness. ID persons are permanently disabled and not subject to improvement in some areas of ability. Sentencing options for ID offenders should not mimic those for the mentally ill. Sentences should be distinctive based on a multidisciplinary assessment of the offender's needs. Decisions for parole should also be based on assessments by a multidisciplinary team. The psychiatrist has been given too much authority in determining how ID defendants and offenders are to be handled in criminal justice processing. Screening should more properly be done by criminal justice personnel with input from all professionals having expertise in the diagnosis and management of ID persons. ID persons require some constant person, a case manager, to act as advocate in guiding them through the criminal justice system to see that classifications and decisions are appropriately made. 12 references and 2 case citations.