The best discussion posts and responses do more than merely recite the materials. They analyze and extrapolate what you have learned and posit questions for you peers to discuss and wrestle with. Take any stance or approach you like, as long as you support it with the materials and logical argument.

• Lamb, H.R. & Weinberger, L. E. (2019) Deinstitutionalization and other factors in the criminalization of persons with serious mental illness and how it is being addressed. Cambridge University Press.
• Otto, H. D. (2020) A Review of the Literature on Mental Health Court Goals, Effectiveness and Future Implications. Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority.
• Pope, L. et al. (2023)Competing Concerns in Efforts to Reduce Criminal Legal Contact Among People with Serious Mental Illnesses: Findings from a Multi-City Study on Misdemeanor Arrests. New York State Psychiatric Institute at Columbia University.
• Rossman, S. et al. (2012) Criminal Justice Interventions for Offenders with Mental Illness: Evaluation of Mental Health Courts in Bronx and Brooklyn, New York. Urban Institute and National Institute of Justice. Only required to read Chapters 1, 4 & 6.

"A prosecutor has a number of responsibilities as a public servant. One is to protect the public. Another is to provide a fair outcome for those accused of crimes. These obligations can inform a prosecutor's decision whether to agree that a particular criminal defendant can enter into a mental health diversion program rather than facing a criminal conviction and sentence. Studies have shown that there are significant decreases in recidivism rates in mental health courts. This is particularly true with respect to nonviolent offenders (Lamb and Weinberger 4, Otto 7). Based on these studies, a prosecutor reasonably might conclude that the best way to protect the public is not to incarcerate a defendant, particularly a nonviolent defendant, but instead to address the underlying cause of the crime and reduce the likelihood of recidivism through a mental health diversion program.

There are other policies that can be served through a liberal use of mental health diversion programs. In many jurisdictions, prosecutors' caseloads would not be manageable if every case went to trial. Therefore, prosecutors typically will be willing to enter into plea bargains as a way of streamlining the criminal justice process. Mental health diversion programs are one more tool the prosecutor can use, in appropriate cases, in plea bargaining cases that otherwise would be an unwise use of judicial resources. Mental health diversion programs also can positively impact the criminal justice system by decreasing overcrowding in prisons.

Another stakeholder with respect to mental health diversion programs is the mental health court judge. By the time cases reach the mental health court judge, a decision presumably has been made to divert the case to that forum. A mental health court judge, as appropriate, implements policies requiring regular monitoring and policy reviews for all offenders involved with the mental health court. This often results in periodic court dates to monitor the defendants' progress in the treatment plan and to update the court on their overall progress. In Otto's A Review of Literature on Mental Health Court Goals, Effectiveness, and Future Implications, it was noted that studies show that consistent monitoring and support within the mental health court increases the effectiveness and improves the overall outcomes for participants (Otto 8). While the prosecutor focuses on whether to refer a case to the mental health court, the mental health judge focuses on developing the best treatment program for each person appearing in the court. Thus, a mental health court judge makes decisions based on the policy of trying to solve the underlying reasons for criminal behavior and keeping the offender's best long-term interest in mind. With this best interest in the judge's mind it is simple to see how buying into regular monitoring and progress reviews would coincide with these public servant aspirations for mental health court judges."