This article reviews the development of forensic psychiatry and mental health services in Australia for the international reader. It covers the legacy of a series of colonial systems that have contributed to a modern health service that interacts with justice systems. The development of relevant legislation, hospitals, prison services, community, and courts services is reviewed. The training and academic development of professionals is covered. Gaps in service delivery and future directions are considered.

Criminalizing those with mental illness is a controversial topic with a long and complex history in the United States. The problem has traditionally been dichotomized between criminals (i.e., “bad”) in need of placement in jails and prisons and the mentally ill (i.e., “mad”) who are need of treatment in psychiatric facilities. Recent trends demonstrate significant increases in the rates of mental illness in jails and prisons, as well as increased rates of violence within psychiatric hospitals. This would suggest that there are a group of justice involved individuals who are “indistinguishable” within the traditional dichotomous categories of dangerousness and mental illness. The authors argue for a more nuanced model that dimensionally conceptualizes dangerousness and mental illness; increased attention to situational factors that create facilities appropriate for those who are dangerous and mentally ill and more diversion programs for those inappropriate for incarceration or hospitalization.

In community settings, negative symptoms and cognitive deficits are the primary barriers to independent living, stable relationships, and employment for individuals suffering from schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. In contrast, however, positive psychotic symptoms (e.g., command hallucinations and persecutory delusions) often drive behavior which serves as the gateway to arrest and criminalization. Historically, the keystone of treatment for positive psychotic symptoms has been antagonism of dopamine D2 receptors in the mesolimbic tract. In this article, we review and explore the principles underlying dopamine antagonism for the treatment of psychosis; optimization of dopamine antagonists in treating positive psychotic symptoms; the advantages of depot dopamine antagonist antipsychotics in forensic settings; the concepts of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic treatment failures; and the role of medication plasma concentrations in optimizing and managing treatment.

Outpatient diversion programs present an opportunity for severely mentally ill defendants to receive psychiatric treatment and have alleged offenses dismissed by the court. Moreover, the successful completion of pretrial diversion is associated with fewer post-program arrest and jail days. The target patient population for such programs is typically people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders, but the care of such patients in outpatient settings presents challenges for monitoring treatment fidelity, specifically antipsychotic adherence, as low adherence rates are associated with increased rates of recidivism. Presented here is a review of evidence-based strategies that must be employed to track antipsychotic adherence in outpatient diversion programs, including pill counts, use of long-acting injectable antipsychotics, and determination of plasma antipsychotic levels to assess adherence and the adequacy of antipsychotic treatment. Antipsychotic therapy remains the foundation of schizophrenia treatment, but only through the use of all available modalities can clinicians maximize the odds that schizophrenia patients in pretrial diversion maintain psychiatric stability and successfully complete mental health court mandates.

Aggressive and violent behavior, including both verbal and physical aggression, have considerable adverse consequences for people with schizophrenia. There are several potential causes of violent behavior on the part of people with severe mental illness, which include intellectual impairments, cognitive and social-cognitive deficits, skills deficits, substance abuse, antisocial features, and specific psychotic features. This review explores the interventions that have been tested to this date. Computerized Cognitive Training (CCT) or Computerized Social-Cognitive Training (CSCT) have been associated with reductions in violence. Combined CCT and CSCT have been found to improve social cognition and neurocognition, as well as everyday functioning when combined with rehabilitation interventions. These interventions have been shown to reduce violence in schizophrenia patients across multiple environments, including forensic settings. The reductions in violence and aggression have manifested in various ways, including reduced violent thinking and behavior, reduced physical and violent assaults, and reduced disruptive and aggressive behaviors. Effects of cognitive training may be associated with improvements in problem-solving and the increased ability to deploy alternative strategies. The effect of social cognition training on violence reduction appears to be direct, with improvements in violence related to the extent of improvement in social cognition. There are still remaining issues to be addressed in the use of CCT and CSCT, and the benefits should not be overstated; however, the results of these interventions are very promising.

An unprecedented number of individuals with mental illness are represented in the criminal justice system. The unending growth of mentally ill populations in the justice system has led to jails and court dockets being increasingly overwhelmed with cases involving mental illness, state hospitals devoting far more beds and resources to forensic cases, and people without a criminal commitment left waiting for mental health services as forensic cases are prioritized. Although a forensic mental health evaluation is only one component of this larger system, common problems with forensic mental health evaluations can exacerbate the criminalization of persons with mental illness in many ways. This article reviews the current literature regarding issues of quality, reliability, and validity of forensic mental health evaluations, discusses the broader impact of these issues, and offers potential solutions for the field.

Beginning in the 1960s, a steady decline in the number of inpatient psychiatric beds has occurred across the United States, primarily as a result of stricter civil commitment criteria and a societal movement toward deinstitutionalization. Concomitant with this decrease in psychiatric beds has been a steady increase in the number of mentally ill individuals who are arrested and processed through the criminal justice system as defendants. One consequence of this has been an explosion in the number of defendants referred for evaluations of their present mental state—adjudicative competence—and subsequently found incompetent and ordered to complete a period of competency restoration. This has resulted in forensic mental health systems that are overwhelmed by the demand for services and that are unable to meet the needs of these defendants in a timely manner. In many states, lawsuits have been brought by defendants who have had their liberties restricted as a result of lengthy confinements in jail awaiting forensic services. The stress on state-wide forensic systems has become so widespread that this has reached the level of a near-national crisis. Many states and national organizations are currently attempting to study these issues and develop creative strategies for relieving this overburdening of forensic mental health systems nationwide. The purpose of this article is to review the current state of the research on competence to stand trial and to highlight those issues that might be relevant to the issue of criminalization of individuals with mental illness in the United States.

One of the major concerns in present-day psychiatry is the criminalization of persons with serious mental illness (SMI). This trend began in the late 1960s when deinstitutionalization was implemented throughout the United States. The intent was to release patients in state hospitals and place them into the community where they and other persons with SMI would be treated. Although community treatment was effective for many, there was a large minority who did not adapt successfully and who presented challenges in treatment. Consequently, some of these individuals’ mental condition and behavior brought them to the attention of law enforcement personnel, whereupon they would be subsequently arrested and incarcerated. The failure of the mental health system to provide a sufficient range of treatment interventions, including an adequate number of psychiatric inpatient beds, has contributed greatly to persons with SMI entering the criminal justice system. A discussion of the many issues and factors related to the criminalization of persons with SMI as well as how the mental health and criminal justice systems are developing strategies and programs to address them is presented.

De-institutionalization of mental health patients has evolved, over nearly 3 generations now, to a status quo of mental health patients experiencing myriad contacts with first-responders, primarily police, in lieu of care. The current institutions in which these patients rotate through are psychiatric emergency units, emergency rooms, jails, and prisons. Although more police are now specially trained to respond to calls that involve mental health patients, the criminalization of persons with mental illness has been steadily increasing over the past several decades. There have also been deaths. The Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) model fosters mental health acumen among first responders, and facilitates collaboration among first responders, mental health professionals, and mental health patients and their families. Here, we review some modern, large city configurations of CIT, the co-responder model, the mitigating effects of critically situated community-based programs, as well as barriers to the success of joint efforts to better address this pressing problem.

Chronic aggression and violence in schizophrenia are rare, but receive disproportionate negative media coverage. This contributes to the stigma of mental illness and reduces accessibility to mental health services. Substance Use Disorders (SUD), antisocial behavior, non-adherence and recidivism are known risk factors for violence. Treatment with antipsychotic medication can reduce violence. Aside from clozapine, long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAI) appear to be superior to oral antipsychotics for preventing violence, addressing adherence and recidivism. LAI also facilitate the implementation of functional skills training. For the high-risk recidivist target population with schizophrenia, better life skills have the potential to also reduce the risk for contact with the legal system, including an improved ability to live independently in supported environments and interact appropriately with others. High-risk patients who are resistant to treatment with other antipsychotics should receive treatment with clozapine due to its direct positive effects on impulsive violence, along with a reduction in comorbid risk factors such as SUDs.

The relationship between criminogenic risk and mental illness in justice involved persons with mental illness is complex and poorly understood by clinicians, researchers, administrators, and policy makers alike. Historically, when providing services to justice involved persons with mental illness, clinicians have emphasized mental health recovery (eg, psychiatric rehabilitation) at the exclusion of treatments targeted at criminogenic risk. More recently, however, researchers have demonstrated with great clarity that criminogenic risk not only contributes but is likely the leading factor in the criminal behavior committed by persons with mental illness. Yet, we still do not know the nature of this criminogenic-mental illness relationship, how this relationship impacts treatment needs, and of ultimate concern, what this relationship means in terms of individual and societal outcomes. In this paper we briefly define criminogenic risk and the research that demonstrates the role of criminogenic risk in criminal justice involvement of persons with mental illness. We also review prevalence rates of persons with mental illness justice involvement, and then discuss important factors to be considered when assessing risk to include both criminogenic and mental illness risk. We conclude this paper by reviewing treatment and management strategies for persons with mental illness that are criminal justice involved particularly reviewing and building off the recommendations put forth by Bartholomew & Morgan.

The 2019 NEI Congress would like to congratulate the following scientific poster winners:

1. 1st: Implementation Of Personalized Medicine In A Community Psychiatry Practice (#110)

2. 2nd: Comparison Of Traditional Therapy Versus Biofeedback For Tension Type And Migraine Headaches A One Year Retrospective Study Of 50 Patients (#189)

3. 3rd: A Marionettist Pulling My Strings: A Case Of Buprenorphine-induced Chorea (#131)