utdcrim43962025

[utdcrim43962025]

MR 11 – Ethics of Incarcerating the Mentally Ill

Prompt:

Given that prisons often worsen mental health (iatrogenic effects), is it ethical to incarcerate individuals with severe mental illness for nonviolent offenses? Should alternatives like mental health courts or mandated treatment programs replace incarceration in these cases? WHY?

I don’t believe it is ethical to incarcerate individuals with severe mental illness for nonviolent offenses. Prisons are not made to provide mental health treatment. Instead, they often make symptoms worse. Being locked up in a place where you are isolated, treated like a threat, and given little or no emotional support only adds more trauma. People in this situation are not getting the help they need. They are being punished for having an illness.

For many people, their crime is directly tied to their mental health. Maybe they were off medication or responding to a stressful situation they couldn’t handle. Sending them to jail might check a box for justice, but it does nothing to solve the actual problem. That is why I think alternatives like mental health courts or mandated treatment programs should be used instead. They still hold people accountable but also recognize that healing is part of the solution.

Lamb and Weinberger (2016) explain that when people with serious mental illness are diverted into treatment rather than incarceration, their chances of recovery and avoiding future arrests go up. These programs reduce the pressure on jails and actually work better long term. If the goal is public safety and rehabilitation, helping people manage their mental health in the community is more effective than locking them away in a system that often harms them even more.

Reference Lamb, H. R., & Weinberger, L. E. (2016). Deinstitutionalization and other factors in the criminalization of persons with serious mental illness. CNS Spectrums, 21(1), 18–24. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1092852915000978

[utdcrim43962025]

MR 15 – Mental Health, Policy, and My Future Role

Prompt:

How does your future role/career intersect with mental health policy and criminal justice policy, even if you do not have a direct career within the criminal justice system? In your future role, how might you be a change agent for mental health policy within the criminal justice system?

Although I don’t plan to work directly in the justice system, I’ve realized through this course that my future role in cybersecurity and risk compliance does intersect with criminal justice and mental health policy in more ways than I expected. Many companies now have to consider how their systems and policies handle people with complex backgrounds, and that includes those with justice involvement or mental health challenges. I’ve already seen examples where mental health crises led to internal investigations, and how the response either helped someone get support or pushed them out unfairly.

One area where I hope to make a difference is through policy development. As someone working in a security or compliance-focused role, I’ll be in a position to help shape how risk is evaluated. That includes how we handle hiring, workplace support systems, and access to mental health resources. Too often, people with criminal records related to untreated mental illness are automatically filtered out. I want to help change that by promoting trauma-informed review processes and advocating for second chances where appropriate.

Prins and Draper (2009) emphasize how mental health outcomes improve when policies are built with cross-system collaboration. Even outside the justice system, professionals like me can influence those policies by asking better questions and making sure fairness is part of every system we help build.

Reference Prins, S. J., & Draper, L. (2009). Improving outcomes for people with mental illnesses under community corrections supervision: A guide to research-informed policy and practice. Council of State Governments Justice Center.

[utdcrim43962025]

MR 10 – Are Specialty Courts Effective Alternatives?

Prompt:

Drug courts, mental health courts, and other specialty courts have gained popularity in the U.S. Do you think these courts are an effective alternative to incarceration? Why or why not?

I do think mental health courts and drug courts are a more effective and humane alternative to incarceration, especially for people whose crimes are directly tied to untreated mental illness or addiction. Jail rarely provides the support people need to get better, and it can even make things worse. Specialty courts at least try to get to the root of the problem by offering treatment, structure, and accountability instead of just punishment.

That said, they’re not a perfect fix. Not everyone gets accepted into these programs, and sometimes the requirements are so strict that people drop out or get removed. Still, the idea behind them makes more sense to me than putting someone in jail where they get no consistent treatment or support. In many cases, especially with first-time offenses, people are just stuck in a cycle because no one ever stepped in to help them earlier.

According to Sarteschi et al. (2011), people who go through mental health courts tend to have lower rates of reoffending, which tells me the model is doing something right. It gives people a second chance while still holding them accountable. I think we need more of that — not just courts that punish, but ones that also ask why the crime happened in the first place and how it can be prevented in the future.

Reference Sarteschi, C. M., Vaughn, M. G., & Kim, K. (2011). Assessing the effectiveness of mental health courts: A quantitative review. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39(1), 12–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.09.002

[utdcrim43962025]

MR 9 – Reentry and Mental Health Barriers

Prompt:

What are the biggest barriers individuals with mental illness face when transitioning from jail back into the community? How can reentry programs be improved?

The transition from jail back into the community is already hard for most people, but it can be even more overwhelming for someone dealing with a mental illness. One of the biggest barriers is the sudden loss of structure. Inside jail, even though the conditions aren’t ideal, routines are set and treatment may be available. Once released, many people are left on their own without medication, a treatment plan, or even a place to live. This makes it really easy for them to fall through the cracks and end up back in crisis or re-arrested.

Another major challenge is the stigma around both mental illness and incarceration. These individuals often struggle to find housing or employment because of their criminal record, and many treatment providers are already overwhelmed and underfunded. Transportation, lack of insurance, and difficulty navigating the system also make access to care difficult, especially in rural or underserved areas.

According to Mallik-Kane and Visher (2008), successful reentry depends on strong connections between jails and community providers before a person is released. Reentry programs should focus on bridging that gap by offering medication continuity, peer support, housing assistance, and help with getting ID or benefits. Without this kind of support, it is almost impossible to build stability. Reentry should not feel like being thrown into the deep end. It should be a guided process with real, ongoing help.

Reference Mallik-Kane, K., & Visher, C. A. (2008). Health and prisoner reentry: How physical, mental, and substance abuse conditions shape the process of reintegration. Urban Institute Justice Policy Center.

[utdcrim43962025]

MR 8 – Breaking the Cycle Between Houselessness and Mental Health

Prompt:

Discuss the intersection of houselessness, mental health, and at-risk behaviors. What systemic changes and policies are needed to break this cycle?

The connection between houselessness, mental health, and at-risk behaviors is more than just correlation. It is a cycle that feeds into itself. People experiencing mental illness often struggle to maintain stable housing, especially when they lack access to treatment or support systems. Without housing, their conditions usually get worse. They may turn to substances to cope or end up in dangerous environments that increase the risk of violence or victimization. At the same time, mental health services are harder to access without a permanent address, which only deepens the problem.

Many people in this cycle end up being criminalized instead of supported. Loitering, trespassing, and minor drug offenses are common ways houseless individuals are pulled into the justice system. But jail time does not treat mental illness or provide long-term housing. It only resets the cycle. According to Padgett et al. (2016), housing-first models that provide stable living environments without preconditions have been shown to improve mental health outcomes and reduce system involvement.

To truly break the cycle, policies need to prioritize affordable housing, integrated mental health care, and reentry support for justice-involved individuals. This also includes funding for community-based programs that offer both treatment and case management in one place. Without these systemic changes, we will continue managing symptoms instead of addressing root causes.

Reference Padgett, D. K., Henwood, B. F., & Tsemberis, S. J. (2016). Housing first: Ending homelessness, transforming systems, and changing lives. Oxford University Press.

[utdcrim43962025]

MR 7 – Front-Line Responses and Access to Mental Health Care

Prompt:

How does access to care, or the lack thereof, come into play when discussing front-line interactions (police, EMS, ER, CIT personnel, etc.) with persons who have mental health concerns?

Access to mental health care plays a major role in shaping how front-line workers interact with people in crisis. When someone doesn’t have access to consistent treatment, they are more likely to experience episodes that bring them into contact with police or emergency services. Unfortunately, this often happens in a moment of crisis, when the person is least able to communicate clearly or follow instructions. That creates a high-stress situation for both the individual and the responder.

When care is limited or unavailable, front-line workers like police officers or EMTs are often left to fill in the gaps. They are not mental health professionals, but they end up being the first people called when someone is having a psychiatric emergency. In some cases, this can lead to unnecessary arrests or use of force simply because responders don’t have better options. This is especially true in communities without crisis intervention teams or where ERs are overwhelmed.

According to Compton et al. (2014), when individuals lack access to treatment, front-line responses tend to be reactive and punitive rather than supportive. Better access to care means people are more likely to be stable, and when a crisis does happen, responders can act quickly and appropriately. It also reduces the burden on emergency services, allowing them to focus on their actual roles rather than acting as stand-ins for an underfunded mental health system.

Reference Compton, M. T., Bakeman, R., Broussard, B., Hankerson-Dyson, D., Husbands, L., Krishan, S., ... & Watson, A. C. (2014). The police-based Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) model: Effects on level of force and resolution, referral, and arrest. Psychiatric Services, 65(4), 517–522. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201300107

[utdcrim43962025]

MR 6 – Prevention Through Theory-Informed Strategy

Prompt:

Based on the criminological theories presented, what prevention strategies could reduce both offending and victimization among individuals with mental health disorders?

Using criminological theories can actually help shape better prevention strategies for people with mental health disorders. A lot of the time, this group ends up caught in the justice system not because they are dangerous, but because they lack access to care or support. One theory that stands out to me is social control theory. It says that people are less likely to commit crimes when they feel connected to others. So, one strategy could be building stronger social support networks. That might mean making sure someone has stable housing, a job they can manage, or even just a group or caseworker who checks in regularly.

Another theory that applies is routine activity theory. If someone is isolated and doesn’t have structure in their day, they are more likely to end up in risky situations. Prevention could be as simple as providing places where people can go during the day that are safe and supportive. Programs like mental health clubs, supported employment, or housing with staff present can reduce both offending and victimization.

According to Lamb and Weinberger (2016), many people with serious mental illness end up in jail after avoidable situations. If more communities offered early mental health care and outreach, some of these outcomes might never happen. Prevention means more than stopping crime. It means supporting people before the system ever has to get involved.

Reference Lamb, H. R., & Weinberger, L. E. (2016). Deinstitutionalization and other factors in the criminalization of persons with serious mental illness. CNS Spectrums, 21(1), 18–24. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1092852915000978

[utdcrim43962025]

MR 5 – Data and Mental Health in the Justice System

Prompt:

Why are data crucial in the discussion surrounding mental health/criminal justice system?

Data is crucial when talking about the connection between mental health and the criminal justice system because it helps us understand the scope of the problem. Without clear, consistent information, it is hard to tell how many people in the system are struggling with mental illness, what kind of care they are receiving, or whether current approaches are working. When data is missing or incomplete, it becomes easy for decision-makers to ignore the issue or rely on stereotypes instead of facts.

Good data helps us make smarter choices about policy, funding, and reform. For example, if we know how many incarcerated people have been diagnosed with a mental disorder, how long they tend to stay, or what their recidivism rates are, we can target resources more effectively. We can also evaluate whether programs like mental health courts, diversion initiatives, or reentry planning actually make a difference. Without numbers to back it up, even well-meaning reforms may fall short.

Unfortunately, many states do not collect this kind of information in a reliable way. According to Prins (2014), there is a lack of standardized data on how mental health is handled across different facilities and regions. This makes it difficult to compare outcomes or identify best practices. If we want to improve the justice system and provide real support to those with mental illness, better data collection and transparency need to be part of the solution.

Reference Prins, S. J. (2014). Prevalence of mental illnesses in US state prisons: A systematic review. Psychiatric Services, 65(7), 862–872. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201300166

[utdcrim43962025]

MR 4 – Mental Health and Public Stigma

Prompt:

What are the things in everyday life (language, media, etc.) that influence stigma for mental health, substance use, or justice-involved individuals?

Stigma around mental health, substance use, and justice involvement is built into a lot of the things we experience in everyday life. Sometimes it’s in obvious ways, like how news outlets describe people with mental illness as unstable or dangerous. Other times it’s more subtle, like a joke in a movie or a phrase we say without thinking, such as “he’s totally psycho” or “that’s so crazy.” Language like this reinforces the idea that mental illness is something to be feared or laughed at, instead of understood.

Social media can be just as harmful. Even when people are trying to be funny or relatable, memes and viral posts often stereotype addiction or mental illness. For example, I’ve seen jokes that make light of therapy, medication, or trauma. When these messages are repeated over and over, they affect how people view themselves and others. Someone might avoid getting help because they don’t want to be seen as weak or “crazy.”

Stigma also shows up when people with criminal records are automatically labeled as dangerous, no matter what their story is. According to Corrigan and Nieweglowski (2019), public stigma makes it harder for people to find housing, employment, or treatment — all things they need to rebuild their lives. If we want to reduce stigma, we need to look closely at how our everyday culture shapes our assumptions, often without us realizing it.

Reference Corrigan, P. W., & Nieweglowski, K. (2019). Stigma and the public health agenda for the opioid crisis in America. International Journal of Drug Policy, 74, 102–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2019.09.006

[utdcrim43962025]

MR 3 – The DSM and the Criminal Justice System

Prompt:

How does the DSM’s framework influence the criminal justice system’s handling of mentally disordered offenders?

The DSM is something I had always heard about, but I didn’t realize how much it affects the way the criminal justice system deals with people who have mental health conditions. Even though it was created for medical professionals, it has become a big part of legal decisions too. If someone is arrested and shows signs of mental illness, their diagnosis often depends on how their symptoms line up with DSM criteria. That diagnosis can then shape how the system treats them — from whether they’re seen as competent to stand trial, to whether they get diverted into treatment instead of going to prison. One area where the DSM has a big impact is in determining someone’s state of mind during the crime. Courts might use a diagnosis to help figure out if the person understood what they were doing. But the DSM isn’t perfect, and not everyone fits neatly into one category. That can create problems, especially for people with complex or overlapping symptoms. I also think the system sometimes misuses diagnoses. For example, some disorders get more sympathy than others. According to Hector and Khey (2022), even though the DSM helps create a shared language, the justice system still struggles to apply it fairly. That makes me think we need more than just labels — we need people in the system who actually understand what those labels mean and how to respond in a supportive way.

Reference Hector, J., & Khey, D. N. (2022). Criminal justice and mental health: An overview for students (2nd ed.). Springer Publishing.

[utdcrim43962025]

MR 2 – ACEs and Criminal Justice Policy

Prompt:

How might understanding ACEs improve policies within the criminal justice system to better address the needs of justice-involved individuals?

Learning about Adverse Childhood Experiences, or ACEs, has changed the way I think about people who come into contact with the criminal justice system. When someone grows up dealing with trauma like abuse, neglect, or household dysfunction, it affects how they respond to the world. It can lead to things like substance use, difficulty in school, and trouble regulating emotions. These issues often continue into adulthood and, in many cases, lead to justice involvement.

If policies inside the criminal justice system were more informed by this knowledge, we might see a shift in how people are treated. For example, judges and probation officers could use ACE scores to help determine if someone would benefit more from mental health support or trauma-informed counseling instead of jail time. This would not mean excusing harmful behavior, but it would help address the root cause instead of just the outcome.

One helpful idea is to expand access to trauma-informed programs for youth and adults who are at risk of incarceration. When people are offered tools to understand their trauma and build resilience, they are less likely to reoffend. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, early intervention and community-based support can reduce long-term justice involvement and improve public safety overall.

Reference Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2019). Preventing adverse childhood experiences: Leveraging the best available evidence. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/preventingACES.pdf

[utdcrim43962025]

MR 1 - Dorothea Dix and Modern Advocacy

If Dorothea Dix were alive today, I believe she would be heavily involved in pushing for reform in how the U.S. handles mental illness within the criminal justice system. In the 1800s, she fought for the humane treatment of people with mental illness who were being held in jails and poorhouses. That same issue still exists today, just in a more modern form. Thousands of people with untreated mental illnesses end up incarcerated instead of receiving care, often for nonviolent offenses that stem from their conditions.

I think Dix would be involved in pushing for policy changes at both the state and federal level, demanding more funding for mental health courts, diversion programs, and community-based treatment. She might also be active in efforts to eliminate the use of solitary confinement for individuals with mental illness, which has been widely criticized for worsening psychiatric symptoms. Her original activism was based on compassion and persistence, and those qualities would still serve her today, especially in the face of bureaucratic resistance.

Dix was known for collecting data and firsthand accounts to advocate for change, so I can also see her today using social media, testimony, and statistics to support her case. She would likely work alongside organizations like NAMI or the Treatment Advocacy Center. Her work, though started over a century ago, would still be incredibly relevant in our current system.

Reference Hector, J., & Khey, D. N. (2022). Criminal justice and mental health: An overview for students (2nd ed.). Springer Publishing.

[utdcrim43962025]

MR 14

When we don't prioritize the mental health of first responders, healthcare workers, and criminal justice professionals, it creates serious problems not just for them, but for the entire community. These jobs are already stressful and traumatic, and without the right support, burnout, depression, PTSD, and even substance abuse can become common. When these professionals are struggling, it affects how well they can do their jobs — mistakes happen, relationships with the public can suffer, and sometimes people end up leaving the field entirely.

One major problem is that there’s still a lot of stigma around asking for help, especially in professions that are supposed to be "tough." Many people fear being seen as weak, or worry it might hurt their careers. To reduce these barriers, we need to make mental health support part of the normal work culture. This could mean providing confidential counseling, peer support programs, or even just offering mental health days without judgment. It also helps when leadership openly talks about mental health and leads by example.

At the end of the day, taking care of the people who take care of us isn't optional — it's necessary. If we want our institutions to stay strong and trustworthy, we have to make sure the mental health of these workers is a top priority (Carleton et al., 2018).

Reference: Carleton, R. N., Afifi, T. O., Taillieu, T., Turner, S., Mason, J. E., Ricciardelli, R., ... & Sareen, J. (2018). Exposures to potentially traumatic events among public safety personnel in Canada. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 63(1), 54-64.

[utdcrim43962025]

MR 13

Grassroots efforts really do make a huge difference because they start with regular people who care about their communities. When change comes from the ground up, it feels more real and personal, and people are more willing to get involved. It also helps break down stigma around tough issues like mental health or criminal justice reform because it’s not just politicians talking — it's neighbors, friends, and everyday people sharing their stories and pushing for change.

Over time, these local movements grow and start to shape how society as a whole thinks about certain topics. They can also push lawmakers to take action. A lot of big policy changes wouldn’t have happened without grassroots efforts calling out what’s broken in the system and demanding better. One example is how grassroots advocacy has led to more awareness about mental health in the criminal justice system, like creating mental health courts and programs that offer treatment instead of jail time (Testa & West, 2010). These kinds of changes wouldn’t happen if people just stayed silent.

At the end of the day, grassroots efforts are important because they keep the focus on real people and real problems. They remind those in power that lasting change comes from listening to the people who are actually living through these issues every day.

Reference: Testa, M. F., & West, S. G. (2010). Civil commitment in the United States. Psychiatry (Edgmont), 7(10), 30–40.

[utdcrim43962025]

MR 12 - Many formerly incarcerated individuals face technological barriers upon release. How might correctional facilities better prepare them for digital reintegration, and why is this important for success in the modern world?

When someone gets out of prison after years inside, they’re returning to a world that’s changed—especially when it comes to technology. We do everything online now: job applications, banking, even setting up doctor’s appointments. But for someone who’s been cut off from all of that, it can be incredibly overwhelming. The digital world moves fast, and without guidance, it can feel impossible to catch up.

Correctional facilities could be doing a lot more to help people prepare for this shift. First off, they should be offering actual digital literacy training—basic computer use, internet navigation, how to avoid scams, how to fill out online forms, and how to use tools like Zoom, Gmail, or even job boards. These aren’t luxury skills anymore—they’re essential.

It would also help if facilities gave incarcerated individuals hands-on access to tech. It’s not enough to just watch a video about how to use a computer; people need to actually practice. Think of it like teaching someone to drive. You wouldn’t just hand them a manual and expect them to be road-ready. Same thing here.

Reentry programs should continue that support post-release—community centers or halfway houses could have “digital resource rooms” where people can get one-on-one help. And this isn’t just a feel-good idea. Being digitally literate can literally determine whether someone can get a job, access public benefits, or stay out of trouble.

If we want people to succeed after incarceration, we can’t ignore the world they’re reentering. Preparing them to navigate it—especially online—is one of the most practical and impactful things we can do.

References:

Latessa, E. J., & Lovins, B. (2019). Corrections in the 21st Century. McGraw-Hill Education.

Pew Charitable Trusts. (2021). How Technology Can Help Justice-Involved Individuals Reenter Society. https://www.pewtrusts.org U.S. Department of Justice. (2020). Roadmap to Reentry. https://www.justice.gov