Research
Research Projects
The Mental Health Court Consortium has embarked upon a project to bring researchers to the court to examine data in order to determine for whom the various components of the court work best, in what ways, and under what circimstances. We have invited various academics, students, universities and hospital groups to participate in this project. Various projects are underway and others are in the grant application phase. The first project to be completed was an Honours Thesis from the University of Toronto completed by Deborah Dinshaw in March of 2010. Others will be posted on this site as they are completed.
Immigrants and the Canadian Mental Health Courts
Deborah M. Dinshaw, B.Sc .
Abstract
Mental health courts are a relatively new concept in the history of Canadian law. The system was implemented with two main objectives at hand: the first was to deal with pre-trial issues of fitness as efficiently as possible, and the second was to slow down the ‘revolving door’ of offenders – that it, reoffending and reappearing in court. They have been found to effectively reduce recidivism and substance abuse, as the focus of mental health courts is treatment and reintegration back into the community. However, current literature fails to recognize specific subsets of the population that are most affected by Mental Health Courts and under what circumstances they benefit the most. This study aims to determine whether there is a bias towards immigrants in the diagnosis of mental health issues. Files from the Mental Health Court at Old City Hall in Toronto were reviewed and data regarding offenders’ age, gender, immigrant status, country of origin, and type of offence committed were collected. The data then underwent statistical analyses to determine whether immigrant status was correlated to the offender’s diagnosis or the type of offence committed. The consequences of the findings cannot yet be determined. However, the results of this study indicate that immigrants are less likely to appear in mental health court, but that their crimes are more likely to be violent in nature. Thus, future research needs to target specific needs in counteracting criminal activity for such individuals.
KEYWORDS: forensic psychology, mental health, immigrants, courts, bias
Background
The term “therapeutic jurisprudence” was first introduced in the 1980s to give a title to the interaction between mental health and the legal field. This crucial term would later be responsible for the creation of mental health courts. The last decade in particular has hosted a major transformation with respect to how mentally ill offenders are handled in the legal system, moving from a philosophy of incarceration to one of rehabilitation. Mental health courts are a recent innovation in Canadian law, redirecting offenders of low-end crimes with mental health issues into community based treatments. Judicial monitoring is ongoing and kept in place to address both the public’s concerns for safety and to monitor the mental health needs of offenders in the system. The process includes mental health assessments and individualized treatments. The primary goal of this system is to address the origin of underlying problems leading to delinquent activity. The system was implemented to effectively assess pre-trial issues of fitness and slow down the ‘revolving doors’ – i.e. having individuals reoffend and re-appear in court in a cyclical manner.
A court order is required for any mental health assessment in the context of the legal system. A forensic assessment is ordered if any member of the legal system – the prosecutor, defence lawyer, or presiding judge – believes that mental illness played a role in the crime the individual was accused of committing. Once fitness to stand trial and criminal responsibility are determined, depending on the severity of the crime, the individual can then be assigned an individualized therapeutic rehabilitation program. This community-based treatment will attempt to connect the individual to the appropriate services related to health, housing, and employment opportunities. Continual hearings ensure compliance with the recommendations of the court. In this setting, a judge takes on a more active role in determining the outcome for an offender than is typically expected in a regular hearing.
Reason
The criminal justice system is currently dealing with an overflow of individuals labelled with mental health issues, due primarily due to the mass closure of institutions and the disjointed communal services for mental health. Hence, the criminal justice system has become the default destination for mentally ill offenders, a “social safety net of last resort”. Because the system is relatively new in the history of the Canadian courts, current literature fails to comprehensively outline the strengths and failures of the mental court in Canada. There is no clear answer in terms of recognizing which subsets of the population are most affected by mental health courts and the circumstances under which they benefit the most. A quarter of Ontario’s population is made up of immigrants, according to the Canadian Mental Health Association. This organization claims that immigrants have a lower rate of mental disorders in comparison to Canadian born individuals. However, other psychological research has indicated that the stress of immigration, culture shock, and lack of access to adequate resources are collectively responsible for psychological stresses in immigrant families that are typically not effectively dealt with. This may also be caused by cultural taboos related to mental health issues. If not treated with the proper care, such triggers may lead to socially unacceptable behaviour, up to and including criminal activity. Proactive identification of such situations is crucial to limiting the strain on the already overcrowded criminal justice system. Distinguishing between the causes (selection bias versus an actual cognitive impairment) is critical for allotment of resources in future endeavours.
Aim
Due to the nature of the forensic assessment, it may be that the criteria for a label is culturally sensitive, thereby disposing certain individuals to be labelled as having mental health, although this objectively may not be the case. An individual not familiar with the North American legal process may provide answers that are deemed ‘incorrect’ merely due to their lack of familiarity with our court system. Interpreters are often provided to assist people who have English as their second language – however, is this appropriate enough? Other facets of assessments – with respect to intelligence, learning disabilities, and the like – must be administered in a non-discriminatory and multidisciplinary manner. This may not be the case when individuals has been charged with a crime and cannot effectively communicate to advocate for themselves. This study aims to determine whether there is indeed a bias towards immigrants in the diagnosis of mental health issues in the court system.
Hypothesis
Specifically, this project looks to answer the question “Is there a significant difference between immigrants and Canadian born offenders appearing in the Mental Health Court system?” It was hypothesized that immigrants were more likely to be forensically assessed in the mental health courts. The causal factors for this phenomenon are beyond the scope of this project, but it is believed that there can be a combination of reasons attributing to this anticipated finding. One possibility is that there is a selection bias on the part of the legal actors, and that culturally inappropriate responses from individuals not fluent in the English language can be misconstrued as answers indicating mental illness. Another possibility can be that the stress of immigration and relocating one’s family to a new country with a radically different way of life affects the cognition of the individual. Based on an ecological perspective, their diminished rationality and lack of support system leads to poor choices and the inability to cope in an unfamiliar environment. Before determining causality, however, the phenomenon must first be confirmed. Although no causation statements can be made based upon the results, this study has the potential of impacting future research. It will be important to investigate, if the null hypothesis is falsified, whether there is a selection bias towards immigrants, or if there are genuine issues that this population experiences leading to an issue in their cognition and mental health.
Dataset and Method
Participants
This project has taken on the format of a naturalistic observation. 172 cases were reviewed at the Mental Health Court for offenders in the system in November and December 2009. Sociological characteristics were collected from these files, including age, gender, immigrant status, country of origin, and type of offence committed. Ethical approval has been received from the University of Toronto Ethics Review Committee. The data collected does not include any identifying characteristics, ensuring anonymity and that the privacy of the offenders is respected. Ethical considerations include the fact that human data is being utilized in the project. In addition, the data is being collected from a vulnerable population and hence informed consent cannot be obtained.
Although the term “vulnerable” seems counterintuitive when applied to individuals who have committed crimes, one must consider the characteristics of this particular subset of the population [1]. Offenders with mental health issues are considered a vulnerable population in that they are subject to stigma and intolerance. They are disadvantaged when their cognitive capabilities are coupled with co-morbid factors such as reduced resources and a lack of a support system, leading to a greater tendency to reoffend. Offenders have often lived lives defined by illiteracy, illness, and homelessness. Offenders with mental health issues are at increased risk of reoffending due to the issue of fitness to stand trial, which coincides with their ability to comprehend court procedures. The research risk is minimal, as it did not involve any direct human contact. Data extracted from files was be collected and analyzed only for statistical purposes, to compare sociological characteristics in the population.
Procedures and Measures
The research was primarily comprised of secondary analysis. The data collection portion of the research was conducted in a controlled environment; namely, in the room designated for Mental Health Court proceedings at Old City Hall. Information from each file was recorded in chart form, and confidentiality will be ensured by leaving out all identifying information of the individuals. ANOVA tests were used to calculate if there was a significant difference between immigrants and Canadian born offenders in the court system. The data was then compared to general statistics regarding the percentages of immigrants in mental health facilities and the general population. See Appendix I for a chart tallying the complete set of raw data.
The majority of analysis was conducted in the statistical analysis program, SPSS. Most of the tests conducted require numerical values for input. As such, “string data” (i.e. non-numerical categories) was converted into numerical codes. Canadian born offenders were labelled as “1”, and immigrants were “2”. Males were assigned to “1” and females were “2”. Diagnoses were coded as a “1” for schizophrenia, a “2” for affective/personality disorder, a “3” for either of the above in conjunction with drug abuse; there was a sole person placed in a fourth category, as their diagnosis included dementia. Age is already a numerical variable, and therefore was not recoded.
Offences were analyzed twice – once, by virtue of their own description. The second time data was converted into one of three categories, describing each crime as either non-violent (“1”), mildly/potentially violent (“2”), or clearly an act of violence (“3”). There were a total of 24 different criminal offences seen during this time period. A complete list of the types, numbers, and subsequent classifications can be found in a chart in Appendix II. This classification system was adapted from the scale used in the paper written by Vaughan et al [2], who first described the subset of female offenders as a heterogeneous group depending on the violence levels of the committed crime.
Results
The specific values for the descriptive statistics are summarized in table format below. It displays the characteristics of the study’s participants with respect to immigrant status, gender, age, offence, and diagnosis.
Other preliminary analyses included observing the skewness factor for the statistics in question. The data was keyed into the SPSS program, and descriptive statistics of various sociological characteristics pertaining to each case were calculated. Kurtosis is a measure that determines whether the data in question are comparable to the normal, bell curved distribution by measuring whether the data are peaked or flat. The diagnoses of these individuals were found to mirror a normal distribution, with a high kurtosis value of 6.961. This suggests that the variance in question results from infrequent large deviations. The other variables, however, with the exception of age, were found to be significantly different from that of the anticipated bell shaped curve. The average kurtosis value should have a value of 3, but these other variables all had a value of less than -1. This suggests that the variance in the distributions for immigrant status, gender, and offence are more likely to be based on frequent modestly sized deviations. The skewness of the data suggests that the mass of distribution for gender and diagnosis is concentrated to the left (implying that there are more males and more schizophrenics in the system, respectively).
Age
Offenders ranged in age from 20-70 years of age (M=40.97, SD=12.56), with a total of 6 individuals whose year of birth was unknown. This latter phenomenon is due to the fact that some individuals are homeless and lack complete files (medical or otherwise) that can validate their identity and other pertinent information. The age of offenders was an interesting variable to examine, as there were two interesting discrepancies between the sample and general population. It was found that less than 2% of the sample was under the age of twenty, and that the most offenders were in the age category of 40-49 years.
Diagnosis
85.5% of the offenders were diagnosed as schizophrenic, followed by 7.6% of people being given the label of either affective disorder or personality disorder. Drug usage in conjunction with any of the above diagnoses accounted for 5.8% of all diagnoses, with a single patient being labelled as having both schizophrenia and dementia.
Gender
Almost 30% of all offenders in this sample were female. Specifically, in the immigrant group, 20.6% were females, in comparison to 34.8% of Canadian born offenders being women. In conducting several ANOVA tests, it was determined that the only variable with significantly different means for its two group was gender, with Fobt = 3.918. As such, it can be seen that there was as significant difference between male and female offenders appearing in mental health courts. A Pearson correlation was also conducted, and it was determined that gender was correlated with immigrant status (r=-0.15) at the α = 0.05 level. At the α = 0.01 level, it was found that there was an even stronger relationship between gender and diagnosis (r=0.239).
Offence
In analyzing the types of offences committed, it was found that assault was the most common offence for which people appeared in court (30.8%), followed by theft (11%). The third most common offence was tied between Failure to Comply and Possession of Stolen Property, each at 8.1%. The other 20 charges all had frequencies less than 5%. When categorized into levels of violence, it was found that 35.36% of the crimes were non-violent, that 20.12% were mildly violent or had the potential to be violent, and that 44.52% of the crimes were clearly violent in nature.
Immigrant Status
It was anticipated that there would be a greater proportion of immigrants in the mental health court system due to their high occurrence in the general population and the belief that they have less access to resources at stressful times. Statistics Canada reports that 1 of every 2 Torontonians is an immigrant. This study had a total of 63/172 offenders who were identified as immigrants, which is 36.6%. A binomial test was conducted initially based on the fact that the collected data was from a random sample. As such the Z score was calculated to compare the expected and actual number of immigrants in the legal system. A z score of z=-3.507 was obtained, indicating clearly that the dynamics of this sample were not representative of the statistics for the general population.
Of 63 immigrants in this sample, 11 were from Jamaica, 9 were from China, and 6 were from Italy. There were 5 people each from Iran and India, 4 from Russia, and 3 each from Vietnam and Trinidad. There were two offenders each from Greece, Ethiopia, Kenya, Mexico, and Syria. The following countries were native homelands for one offender from the sample at the Mental Health Courts: Somalia, Poland, Tibet, Ireland, France, El Salvador, and Afghanistan. In comparison to the makeup of Toronto, this representation is in stark contrast to the number of people who are identified as not Caucasian. The fifteen immigrants from Europe must be excluded in this analysis, as they are not classified as visible minorities. As per the ethnic labels used on the Statistics Canada website, this summarizes the sample as including 18 Asians, 8 Middle Eastern, 3 Hispanic, and 19 Black people.
A condensed table summarizing all the aforementioned sociological characteristics, classified by immigrant status, can be seen below:
Table 2:Comparison of Canadian born to Immigrant Offenders across Indicator Variables
Immigrant Status gender age offence diagnosis
Canadian N
M
SD 109
1.35
0.479 106
41.37
12.289 106
2.01
0.910 108
1.24
0.625
Immigrant N
M
SD 63
1.21
0.408 60
40.27
13.093 58
2.24
0.844 63
1.16
0.447
Discussion
Prior research has failed to comprehensively outline within group differences of mental health offenders, given that such a strand in the justice system is relatively new. Based on the makeup of individuals who come to court, it cannot be assumed that the population of such offenders mirrors that of mainstream criminals. It should be noted that there are key distinctions between criminals who are divested into a community-based program; namely, the type of offence committed cannot be so severe (such as murder) that punitive measures would outweigh the benefits of rehabilitation. This study aims to look at possible differences between Canadian born and immigrant offenders who end up in mental health court. Because data was collected without informed consent, it was not possible to label each offender by a mere guess of his or her cultural background. Even if a person was a visible minority, they were classified as Canadian if they were born in Canada. Therefore, comparison of the ethnic dynamics of this sample to the general Torontonian population is artificial in nature. However, it is clear that the proportion of people with African/Caribbean origin is overrepresented in mental health court. This is consistent with prior findings, in surveys that demonstrated staff of mental health services also believes that the proportion of black people is inconsistent with their actual needs [3].
A study by Vaughan et al [2] was one of the first to distinguish that offenders participating in crime with different levels of violence may require unique means of intervention. In this study, therefore, the offences committed were classified as crimes either without any violence, with potential/mild incidents of violence, or crimes that were clearly violent. Given the null, it was expected that each category would each have an equal occurrence of 54.7 cases each. However, in this sample, it was found that there were 58, 33, and 73 acts, respectively. This may be alarming because it is clear that the most violent group had the greatest number of offenders. When furthering comparing the group of Canadians (M=2.01) to immigrants (M=2.24), it is clear that the latter group was more likely to partake in violent crime. There was also less variance (SD=0.844 for immigrants, vs. SD=0.910 for Canadian born offenders), indicating a more homogenous group. This suggests that criminals born in other countries with mental health issues are more predisposed to commit violent criminal acts, whereas Canadian born offenders are more dispersed and variable in their acts.
This pattern continues throughout the comparisons of Canadian born to immigrant offenders in every other aspect. However, the ANOVA tests indicate that the differences between these groups are not statistically significant. It was seen that the immigrant group that ended up in mental health court was more likely to be male than female; they were also more likely to be identified as schizophrenic. There was no significant difference in the ages of the offenders.
However, in comparing the overall distribution of age for these offenders to that of the general population, it should be noted that there is a converse relationship between expected trends. Graph One clearly displays that only 1.4% of the sample was under the age of 20. The reason for this finding has yet to be explored in the literature. It is this author’s opinion, however, that this is at least partly due to the fact that young offenders with mental health issues are perhaps not yet diagnosed and are still under the jurisdiction of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. It has been found that generally, criminal offences peak during adolescence, and then decline significantly with age [2,4]. However, in this sample, the peak of crime for this population seems to be in the age range of 40-49 years. Typically, this is the point at which it is expected that criminal activity actually drops, due perhaps to midlife crises or maturity levels. This opposite phenomenon suggests that mid life is a turning point for offenders who are mentally ill, thereby leading to an increase in delinquent behaviour. Again, though, no definitive statement can attribute this finding to an environmental context or change in cognition.
In comparing the types of diagnoses, it was abundantly evident that schizophrenia was the main underlying issue in the majority of cases – 85.5% of all individuals, to be exact. In comparing this value to the literature, it is believed that criminals have rates of schizophrenia up to seven times higher than that of the general population [5,6]. Therefore, this statistic does coincide with the expected values. Immigrants were more likely than Canadian born offenders to receive the diagnosis, although the rates were very similar. Schizophrenic patients are repeatedly admitted, overrepresented, and spend the most time in hospital once admitted, more than any other group of mental health patients [6]. Police officers have discretion in determining whether the person should be referred to mental health services or sent to jail [5]. Europe, unlike North America, has apparently experienced an increase in criminality. This has been attributed to their philosophy in support of risk containment [6]. However, the efficacy of placing mental health offenders in a punitive setting remains in question, thereby further validating the move in Ontario in support of mental health courts and community treatments. Crystallization of belonging to the criminal justice system or mental health system occurs after a given amount of exposure to either system, although the mental illness consistently precedes the first incarceration [5]. This is indicative of the need to acknowledge signs of mental health issues early on, and combat the delinquent effects of not treating disorders. Just as we advertise warning signs for heart attack and stroke, there needs to be greater public education for the signs of somebody who is psychologically suffering, such that they can get the help they need and contribute to society instead of being a burden.
Of the 8 individuals who were diagnosed with a disorder and joint drug abuse, 75% were born in Canada. This factor is particularly important, as drug and alcohol abuse, especially in youth, is linked to vulnerability for sexual assault and thereby increases the risk for depression [7]. In other parts of the world, alcohol and drugs have particular cultural value, in that they are incorporated into religious ceremonies and the like. Therefore, the potential for abuse is greater in North American society. It is well known that combating teenage abuse of drugs and alcohol is key into making our youth more productive and contributing members of society. Prevention/intervention should address lifestyle clusters on lieu of merely changing an isolated behaviour [7].
Other variables with surprisingly high occurrences are also explained in the context of other literature. It is believed that criminal activity for mainstream offending can be accounted for with over 90% of perpetrators being male [8]. However, almost 30% of the offenders in mental health court were women. Again, this is consistent with previous research. Given the label of having a mental health issue, women have an increased likelihood of being involved in criminal activity (e.g. Pandiani et al., 2007). 13 of the 63 immigrant offenders, or 20.6%, were women, in comparison to 38 out of 109 Canadian born criminals, representing 34.8%. This is a significant difference. Both statistics are clearly more than the standard 10% expectancy rate, but Canadian born offenders have a greater proportion of women committing crimes. In North America, female offenders’ arrests increased by 76% between 1978-1996 whereas males’ arrests only increased by 42% during that same time period [2]. It is unclear whether this alarming increase in the rate is due to an actual change in the number of women committing crimes, or if police officers are starting to arrest more women in comparison to before. Only 1 in 5 immigrants coming before the judge at mental health court are women. This may be due to cultural standards and gender norms, thereby creating a mental blockade against deviant, illegal behaviour for people who come from more traditional backgrounds.
The applications of this study are limited in their context, as the analysis was based only on one sample of the mental health courts, in the ethnically diverse city of Toronto. The cultural makeup of this area is not like other parts of Canada, especially in that 50% of the population is made up of immigrants. Several trials do need to be conducted in order for the findings to even be generalized within the GTA. Comparing specific cultures in their frequency was not feasible in this study, given that even ethnic minorities born in Canada were lumped together in one group. Further research can look into other sociological characteristics, as well as give more insight into the causal factors contributing to criminal activity.
The most insightful piece of information in future research will be to determine how the mental health of second generation immigrants are affected, as they are exposed to the stresses of maintaining their culture at home while assimilating into the expectations of North American society. In the process of data collection, it was evident that many young people appearing in court were accompanied by their immigrant parents, who were not necessarily completely cognizant of the proceedings. This is an interesting point to consider, as it is the assumption by which the hypothesis for this study was based but subsequently rejected. It was believed that immigrants with a language barrier would be perceived as having a cognitive deficiency, and therefore would be placed inappropriately in a mental health court setting. However, it should be noted that such individuals, at least in ‘real world’ situations, are more passive in their interactions and therefore the likelihood of them even committing a crime should be considered to be very low.
Conclusion
Mental health services in North America have witnessed a steady decline, first marked by deinstitutionalization in the 20th century. Mental health courts are currently the best response to the subsequent criminalization of the mentally ill. Such individuals require much needed treatment in order to contribute to society, en lieu of receiving punitive sentences for actions that they did not necessarily intend to carry it out. The primary objectives of the courts are to expeditiously assess and treat mentally disordered accused and to slow down the “revolving door” of criminal activity. In a comparison study of Canadian born and immigrant offenders, it was shown that this particular sample had some clear differences in the types of people in the system. These preliminary findings suggest that Canadian born offenders were more likely to be diagnosed with drug abuse, whereas immigrants were more likely to be involved in dangerous crimes. There is an overall increase in the proportion of women represented in the sample, with Canadian women specifically being overrepresented in comparison to mainstream offenders.
Prior research, although not specific to mental health, has consistently indicated that the best means for prevention is to target the younger generation [2, 6, 7, 8, 9]. There is a dichotomy between the perception that the mentally ill are automatically dangerous, and the stigma and subsequent biases against this group. Neither of these extremes effectively address the reality of the situation, nor does it reflect how society should deal with delinquent behaviours. Second generation immigrants may be largely at risk of suffering from mental health issues due to competing expectations from their home and society, although this belief is yet to be backed up by empirical research. Untreated mental health issues at a young age are associated with academic failure, social rejection, association with deviant peers, and the development of comorbid conditions, which are compounded by drug and alcohol usage. Coming to an understanding of this population’s needs is the key for successful intervention.
Appendix I: Tally Chart for the Cases Observed in November and December 2009
Subject #
Gender
Date in Court
YOB
Immigrant
Country of Origin
Offence Committed
Diagnosis
1 M November 6th 1943 No Theft Schizophrenia
2 F November 6th 1958 Yes China Assault Schizophrenia
3 M November 6th 1946 No Mischief Schizophrenia
4 F November 6th 1986 No Assault Schizophrenia
5 F November 6th 1955 No Forgery Schizophrenia
6 M November 6th 1985 Yes Jamaica Assault Schizophrenia
7 F November 13th 1971 No Break and Enter Affective Disorder and Drugs
8 M November 13th 1966 No Assault Schizophrenia
9 M November 13th 1978 Yes China **** Schizophrenia
10 F November 13th 1987 No Assault Schizophrenia
11 M November 13th 1954 Yes Italy Assault Schizophrenia
12 M November 13th 1988 No Unlawful Entry Schizophrenia
13 M November 13th 1964 No Mischief Schizophrenia
14 F November 13th 1971 No Break and Enter Affective Disorder and Drugs
15 M November 13th 1986 No **** Schizophrenia
16 M November 13th 1966 Yes Iran Assault Schizophrenia
17 M November 13th 1963 No Assault Schizophrenia
18 F November 13th 1947 No Assault with a weapon Schizophrenia
19 M November 13th 1986 No Assault and Resisting Arrest Schizophrenia
20 F November 13th 1955 No Fraud Schizophrenia
21 F November 13th 1952 Yes Italy Failure to Comply Schizophrenia
22 F November 13th 1982 No Break and Enter Schizophrenia
23 M November 20th 1978 Yes China Failure to Comply Schizophrenia
24 M November 20th 1968 Yes Somalia Theft and Failure to Comply Schizophrenia
25 M November 20th 1969 No Trafficking Cocaine Schizophrenia and Drugs
26 M November 20th 1968 No Mischief Schizophrenia
27 M November 20th 1960 Yes Trinidad Assault Schizophrenia
28 M November 20th 1951 Yes Italy Possession of a Substance Schizophrenia
29 M November 20th 1982 No Harassment Schizophrenia
30 M November 20th 1981 Yes China Assault Schizophrenia
31 M November 20th 1943 No Assault Schizophrenia
32 M November 20th 1959 No Theft Schizophrenia
33 M November 20th Unknown Yes Poland Prowling by Night Schizophrenia
34 M November 20th Unknown No Nuisance Schizophrenia
35 F November 27th 1967 No Assault Schizophrenia
36 M November 27th 1940 Yes Greece **** Schizophrenia
37 M November 27th 1985 Yes Russia Robbery Schizophrenia
38 M November 27th 1956 Yes Trinidad Theft Schizophrenia
39 M November 27th 1972 Yes Jamaica Assault and Resisting Arrest Schizophrenia
40 M November 27th 1963 No Assault Schizophrenia
41 M November 28th 1950 Yes Russia Failure to Comply Schizophrenia
42 M November 28th 1963 Yes Iran Weapon Possession Schizophrenia
43 M November 27th 1962 Yes Italy Sexual Assault Schizophrenia
44 F November 27th 1973 No Assault Schizophrenia
45 F November 27th 1975 No **** Schizophrenia
46 M November 27th 1968 No Indecent Act Schizophrenia
47 F November 27th 1960 No Assault with a Weapon Affective Disorder and Drugs
48 M November 27th 1976 Yes Greece Assault with a Weapon and Break and Enter Schizophrenia
49 M November 27th 1976 No Assault and Causing Disturbance Schizophrenia
50 F November 27th 1978 Yes Jamaica Break and Enter Affective Disorder and Drugs
51 F November 30th 1973 No Possession of Stolen Property Schizophrenia
52 M November 30th 1962 Yes Vietnam Possession of Stolen Property Schizophrenia
53 M November 30th 1960 Yes Vietnam Possession of Drugs Schizophrenia
54 M November 30th 1975 Yes China Assault Schizophrenia
55 M November 30th 1948 Yes Jamaica Failure to Comply Schizophrenia
56 F November 30th 1953 No Threat Schizophrenia
57 M November 30th 1988 No Possession of a Weapon Schizophrenia
58 M November 30th 1980 Yes Tibet Death Threat Schizophrenia
59 F November 30th 1960 No Harassment Schizophrenia
60 M November 30th 1968 Yes Ireland Indecent Act Schizophrenia
61 M November 30th 1984 Yes Jamaica Failure to Comply Schizophrenia
62 M November 30th 1983 Yes Jamaica Threat Schizophrenia
63 F November 30th 1983 Yes France Assault Schizophrenia
64 M December 1st 1963 No Trafficking Cocaine Affective Disorder
65 M December 1st 1974 No Assault Schizophrenia
66 M December 1st 1973 No Assault with a Weapon Schizophrenia
67 M December 1st 1983 Yes Ethiopia Assault Schizophrenia
68 M December 1st 1987 Yes Kenya Concealing a Weapon Schizophrenia
69 M December 1st 1957 No Assault Schizophrenia
70 M December 1st 1987 No Assault with a Weapon Schizophrenia
71 F December 1st 1965 No Threat Affective Disorder
72 M December 1st 1980 Yes China Robbery Schizophrenia
73 M December 1st 1967 No Sexual Assault Schizophrenia
74 M December 1st Unknown No Assault Schizophrenia
75 M December 2nd 1956 Yes El Savador Indecent Act Schizophrenia
76 F December 2nd 1976 No Harassment Schizophrenia
77 F December 2nd 1975 Yes Vietnam Failure to Comply Schizophrenia
78 M December 2nd 1958 No Mischief Schizophrenia
79 F December 2nd 1941 No Break and Enter Schizophrenia
80 M December 2nd 1943 No Assault Schizophrenia
81 F December 2nd 1977 No Assault with a Weapon Schizophrenia
82 M December 2nd 1979 No Assault Schizophrenia
83 M December 2nd Unknown Yes India Assault Schizophrenia
84 M December 2nd 1963 Yes Trinidad **** Schizophrenia
85 M December 3rd 1962 No Assault Schizophrenia
86 M December 3rd 1954 Yes Mexico Assault Schizophrenia
87 F December 3rd 1955 No Assault with a Weapon Schizophrenia
88 M December 3rd 1983 Yes Ethiopia Possession of a Weapon Schizophrenia
89 M December 3rd 1986 Yes India Assault with a Weapon Schizophrenia
90 F December 3rd 1953 Yes Mexico Nuisance Schizophrenia
91 M December 3rd 1964 No Threat Schizophrenia
92 M December 3rd 1971 No Theft Schizophrenia
93 F December 3rd 1950 Yes Jamaica Failure to Comply Schizophrenia
94 M December 3rd 1960 No Death Threat Affective Disorder
95 F December 3rd 1973 No Mischief Schizophrenia
96 F December 3rd 1979 Yes Russia Failure to Comply Affective Disorder
97 F December 3rd 1966 No Assault ****
98 M December 3rd 1977 Yes India Assault with a Weapon Affective Disorder
99 M December 7th 1963 No Sexual Assault Schizophrenia
100 M December 7th 1988 No Theft Schizophrenia
101 F December 7th 1969 No Failure to Comply Schizophrenia
102 M December 7th 1963 No Indecent Act Schizophrenia
103 M December 7th 1968 No Theft and Drugs Schizophrenia
104 F December 7th 1977 No Assault with a Weapon Schizophrenia
105 M December 7th Unknown No Harassment Schizophrenia
106 F December 7th Unknown Yes Jamaica **** Personality Disorder
107 F December 7th 1961 No Possession of an Illegal Substance Affective Disorder and Drug Abuse
108 F December 8th 1971 No Possession of an Illegal Substance Personality Disorder and Drugs
109 M December 8th 1964 No **** Schizophrenia
110 M December 8th 1961 No Possession of Stolen Property Schizophrenia
111 M December 8th 1990 Yes India Fraud Schizophrenia
112 M December 8th 1973 No Theft Schizophrenia
113 M December 8th 1977 Yes Syria Possession of an Illegal Substance Affective Disorder and Drugs
114 M December 8th 1943 No Assault with a Weapon Schizophrenia and Dementia
115 M December 9th 1977 No Assault with a Weapon Schizophrenia
116 M December 9th 1979 No Assault and Failure to Com ply Schizophrenia
117 M December 9th 1987 Yes Syria Assault Schizophrenia
118 M December 9th 1974 No Break and Enter Schizophrenia
119 M December 9th 1963 No Sexual Assault Schizophrenia
120 M December 9th 1982 No Theft Schizophrenia
121 M December 9th 1970 No Mischief Schizophrenia
122 M December 10th 1957 No Theft Schizophrenia
123 M December 10th 1968 No Threat Schizophrenia
124 M December 10th 1982 No Nuisance Schizophrenia
125 M December 10th 1980 Yes India Harassment Schizophrenia
126 F December 10th 1990 No Possession of Stolen Property Schizophrenia
127 M December 10th 1982 No Harassment Schizophrenia
128 M December 10th 1967 No Fraud Schizophrenia
129 M December 10th 1987 Yes Iran Assault and Drug Possession Schizophrenia
130 F December 10th 1941 No Break and Enter (2 counts) Schizophrenia
131 F December 10th 1975 No Break and Enter (3 counts) Affective Disorder
132 M December 10th 1983 Yes China Failure to Comply Schizophrenia
133 F December 11th 1951 No Theft Schizophrenia
134 M December 11th 1987 No Failure to Comply Schizophrenia
135 M December 11th 1961 No Assault (2 counts) Schizophrenia
136 F December 11th 1957 No Assault Affective Disorder
137 F December 11th 1972 No Theft Schizophrenia
138 M December 11th 1965 No Assault (2 counts) Schizophrenia
139 M December 11th 1982 No Theft Schizophrenia
140 M December 11th 1984 No Theft Schizophrenia
141 M December 11th 1965 No Nuisance Affective Disorder
142 F December 14th 1978 Yes Russia Failure to Comply Schizophrenia
143 M December 14th 1948 Yes Italy Assault Affective Disorder
144 F December 14th 1975 No Theft Affective Disorder
145 M December 14th 1974 Yes Iran Assault with a Weapon Schizophrenia
146 F December 14th 1948 Yes China Mischief Schizophrenia
147 M December 14th 1949 No Failure to Comply Schizophrenia
148 M December 14th 1978 No Assault Schizophrenia
149 M December 14th 1963 No Theft Schizophrenia
150 F December 15th 1968 No Theft Schizophrenia
151 M December 15th 1964 No Theft Schizophrenia
152 M December 15th 1983 No Death Threat Schizophrenia
153 M December 15th 1971 Yes China Theft Schizophrenia
154 F December 15th 1958 Yes Jamaica Assault Schizophrenia
155 F December 15th 1962 No Public Mischief Schizophrenia
156 M December 15th 1968 Yes Jamaica Harassment Schizophrenia
157 M December 15th 1969 No Assaulting a Police Officer Schizophrenia
158 M December 16th 1986 Yes Jamaica Sexual Assault Schizophrenia
159 F December 16th 1973 No Aggravated Assault Schizophrenia
160 M December 16th 1964 Yes Kenya **** Affective Disorder
161 F December 16th 1974 Yes Italy Assault with a Weapon Affective Disorder
162 F December 16th 1960 No Assault with a Weapon Affective Disorder
163 F December 16th 1990 No Failure to Comply Affective Disorder
164 M December 16th 1965 Yes Afghanistan Theft Schizophrenia
165 M December 17th 1965 No Threat Schizophrenia
166 M December 17th 1987 No Fraud Schizophrenia
167 M December 17th 1983 No Possession of Cocaine Schizophrenia
168 M December 17th 1953 No Theft Schizophrenia
169 M December 17th 1964 Yes Iran Possession of Cocaine Schizophrenia
170 M December 17th 1970 No Possession of Cocaine Schizophrenia
171 M December 17th 1986 No Sexual Assault Schizophrenia
172 M December 17th 1981 No Fraud Schizophrenia
Appendix II: Classification of Offences Based on Levels of Violence
Classification Offence Frequency Percent
Non violent Forgery 1 0.6
Fraud 5 2.9
Indecent Act 4 2.3
Mischief 7 4.1
Nuisance 4 2.3
Possession of Stolen Property 14 8.1
Public Mischief 1 0.6
Theft 19 11.0
Theft and Failure to Comply 2 1.2
Trafficking Cocaine 2 1.2
Potential for/mildly violent Break and Enter 8 4.7
Failure to Comply 14 8.1
Prowling by Night 1 0.6
Unlawful Entry 1 0.6
Clearly violent Aggravated Assault 1 0.6
Assault 53 30.8
Assaulting a Police Officer 1 0.6
Concealing a Weapon 1 0.6
Death Threat 3 1.7
Harassment 7 4.1
Robbery 2 1.2
Sexual Assault 6 3.5
Threat 6 3.5
Weapon Possession 1 0.6
Works Cited
[1] Pinto-Foltz M, Lodgson MC. (2008). Stigma towards mental illness: a concept analysis using
post partum depression as an exemplar. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 29, 21-36.
[2] Vaughn MG, Newhill CE, Litschge CM, Howard MD. (2007). Cluster profiles of
residentially incarcerated adolescent females: violence and clinical mental health
characteristics. Residential Treatment for Children and Youth, 24(1-2), 35-53.
[3] Warnock-Parks E, Young S, Gudjonsson G. (2010). Cultural sensitivity in forensic sciences:
findings from an audit of South London forensic inpatient services. Journal of Forensic
Psychiatry and Psychology, 21(1), 156-166.
[4] Sampson RJ, Laub JH. (1992). Crime and deviance in the life course. Annual Review of
Sociology, 18, 63-84.
[5] Desseureault D, Cote G, Lesage A. (2000). Impact of first contacts with the criminal justice
or mental health systems on the subsequent orientation of mentally disordered persons toward
either system. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 23, 79-90.
[6] Schanda H, Stompe T, Ortwein-Swoboda G. (2009)., Dangerous or merely ‘difficult’? The
new population of forensic mental hospitals. European Psychiatry, 24, 365-372.
[7] Wells JE, Horwood LJ, Fergusson DM. (2004). Drinking patterns in mid-adolescence and
psychosocial outcomes in late adolescence and early adulthood. Addiction, 99, 1529-1541.
[8] Mallicoat SL. (2007). Gendered justice: attributional differences between males and females
in the juvenile courts. Feminist Criminology, 2(1), 4-30.
[9] Pandiani JA, Banks SM, Carroll BB, Schlueter MR. (2007). Crime victims and criminal
offenders among adults with serious mental illness. Psychiatric Services, 58(11), 1483-1485.
|
|
|
|
|