See e.g., Lassiter v. Reno, 885 F.Supp. 869 (E.D.Va. 1995), aff'd 86 F.3d 1151 (4th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1091 (1997), where the court found that a deputy U.S. Marshal diagnosed as suffering from delusional paranoid personality disorder presented a reasonable probability of substantial harm if permitted to carry a firearm.
Rules or codes of procedure determine the function of an expert witness in court practice of any kind of jurisdiction. In the position of an expert witness, the psychiatrist is expected to provide not only facts and findings, but also opinions, conclusions and evaluations. Not the medical diagnosis, but rather the consequences of an illness, a disorder or an impairment in relation to the demands of a law or a legal regulation, are the central concern of the jurist. Incompetency, insanity, disability etc. are legal terms, with a special meaning in a special context. In a concrete case, it is up to the psychiatrist to outline and to explain the medical and psychological conditions causing a legal insufficiency of this kind. The ultimate reply to the question as to wether a person is competent or incompetent, sane or insane, able or disabled, is always left to the judge, the jury, or to a special tribunal. The expert witness is always and only, assistant to the court or another legal body.
Considering the costs of correctional supervision and the prevalence of mental health-related needs among offenders, a number of solutions have been proposed to promote offender recovery and rehabilitation in the community. An area of dramatic growth has been the proliferation of specialized courts involving partnerships between health and community services . Problem-solving courts that follow structured models and incorporate appropriate treatments are among the relevant models that have been found to be effective (e.g., [16, 23, 24]). Recent studies have also demonstrated the effectiveness of community-based services for offenders with severe and complex needs, including Forensic Assertive Community Treatment , Housing First , and Critical Time Interventions . These inter-agency interventions go beyond a focus on symptom reduction and address core determinants of health and public safety (e.g., housing, employment, etc.) among individuals with complex substance use and mental disorders.
A. In any criminal case, except a violation of § 18.2-31, an act of violence as defined in § 19.2-297.1, or any crime for which a deferred disposition is provided for by statute, upon a plea of guilty, or after a plea of not guilty, and the facts found by the court would justify a finding of guilt, the court may, if the defendant has been diagnosed by a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist with (i) an autism spectrum disorder as defined in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders published by the American Psychiatric Association or (ii) an intellectual disability as defined in § 37.2-100 and the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the criminal conduct was caused by or had a direct and substantial relationship to the person's disorder or disability, without entering a judgment of guilt and with the consent of the accused, after giving due consideration to the position of the attorney for the Commonwealth and the views of the victim, defer further proceedings and place the accused on probation subject to terms and conditions set by the court. Upon violation of a term or condition, the court may enter an adjudication of guilt; or upon fulfillment of the terms and conditions, the court may discharge the person and dismiss the proceedings against him without an adjudication of guilt. This section shall not limit the authority of any juvenile and domestic relations court granted to it in Title 16.1.
Differences by mental health disorder in risk of repeat arrest may be explained in how the mental illness or SUD is flagged and is addressed within the criminal justice court process. Our findings demonstrate that arrestees with a personality disorder were less likely to be arrested more than once; however, a psychosis and personality disorder may be identified earlier in the court process, which could result in the individual being assigned to mental health court or being retained in custody. By contrast, our results demonstrate an increased risk of repeat arrest for individuals with SUD, which is usually detected later in the court process, if ever (Arndt, Turvey, & Flaum, 2002; Maschi & Dasarathy, 2019). Understanding the mental health and SUD diagnoses among arrestees at the time of arrest and at the time of the initial court screening may be an opportunity to divert individuals to treatment or to assign other resources within the justice system. However, without linked clinical and police data, diagnoses may not be detected early in the process, or ever. 2b1af7f3a8