Society and the law – 2130811
An individual that is charged with a crime the criminal justice system has some potential outcome they can face such as entry into a pre-trial diversion program. This is usually an agreement between the state and the defendant and needs an approval from a judge. In many jurisdictions an individual that is arrested for his or her first time is presented with an option of keeping the crime they committed without being tried for it. Pre-trial diversion is a program meant for some first time offenders in order to provide them with a second chance and hence they can avoid being marked by felony conviction for the rest of their lifetime. This can be referred to in various terms such as pretrial diversion, pretrial intervention, good behavior, withheld adjunction, withdraw and file, withheld sentencing and deferred prosecution.
The details contained in the program often differ from one place to another but they all have a similar basic structure. A person that has been charged with a first criminal offense which is relatively minor in nature and appears to be a person who is not likely to repeat the same offense may be given an option of the pretrial diversion. If they accept the offer they then enter a plea of guilty to a particular criminal offense but a judge will not enter an order adjuncating the individual guilty. A person is not guilty until an order finding the person guilty is issued by a judge. At this point an individual is usually at limbo between pleading guilty and getting a conviction (Preifer, 2008).
As opposed to finding an individual guilty the judge withholds the adjunction for a particular period of time and the defendant is placed guilty under certain restrictions same as those of a person on probation. If the person complies with the pretrial diversion agreement terms and conditions, at the end of the stated time frame they get their charges dismissed and the individual not convicted of the crime they committed. This helps an individual that made a stupid mistake just once in their life get another chance in their life with a record that is clean. In case a defendant violates the terms and conditions that have been set on the deferred prosecution agreement they are taken back to court for a sentencing hearing. An individual could violate the program through various ways such as failing a drug test, getting a fresh arrest, or not completing a court-ordered treatment program.
Since the individual had already entered a guilty plea, they no longer have any right to go to trial on the particular case. In case a judge determines that a defendant did not successfully complete the pretrial intervention program, he or she will be convicted and sentenced for the crime they committed. Pretrial diversion is usually a good way of keeping a mistake that an individual did once in their life from ruining their life by a criminal conviction. These programs are also meant to promote rehabilitation as well as minimize the stigma that is associated with a conviction. Any individual that gets arrested, does not have a criminal history and does not want to go to trial is entitled for a pretrial diversion. They should also not have a violent or aggravated nature. In the federal pretrial diversion program an individual is not eligible if they are drug addicts, have been previously convicted, the charges against them involve violation of public trust or they have been charged with a crime that is related to national security (Preifer, 2008).
Pretrial diversion is normally offered in various legal settings, in the federal court system, it is the U.S attorney that is responsible for charging criminal defendants and hence can offer pretrial diversion process in particular cases. When it is used in a drug-related case it is termed as a drug court diversion while that of a case involving driving under the influence then it is DUI diversion. Pretrial diversion programs can be found in local, state and even at the federal levels. However, the difference comes in on the terms and preconditions under which the programs can be offered to an individual from one jurisdiction to another. For instance, there are states where pretrial diversion is offered to drug defendants while the federal pretrial diversion program can not be allowed to drug addicts.
Article; Pretrial Court Diversion of People with Mental Illness
The article is on pretrial court diversion of people with mental illness. This article gives an insight on pretrial diversion and particularly in reference to people with mental illnesses. it highlights on a research conducted to find out the factors affecting pretrial diversion in respect to people with mental illnesses.
Introduction
This involves the administering of justice in a compassionate way for people with mental illnesses. The diversion or people with mental illnesses can take place in three different junctures; pre-arrest diversion, whereby the police use their discretion and hence do not lay any charge. The second one can be a court diversion whereby charges have been laid but there is a pretrial diversion done. The third one is the mental health court when there is a diversion after a plea has been made. The focus of this article is the court diversion and also bringing about the shortcomings of the traditional court systems.
An increase in the prevalence of court diversion can be explained partially by the criminalization of the persons with mental illnesses. Abramson used the term criminalization first in relation to mental illnesses whereby the term refers to a social dilemma that is posed by the de-institutionalization of the PMI. If there is an impediment when it comes to entry of people that show mental disorder into a mental health system, then they will be forced by community pressure to enter into the criminal justice system of social control. The argument brought forward by Abramson is that the criminal justice system re-instutionalizes the PMI through subjecting them to a criminal prosecution against their minor offenses. There are three factors that have led to the criminalization of mental illnesses which are; an increase in the number of people that are living with PMI within the community, handling of the PMI by the police and the inaccessibility of treatment by the PMI (Hartford, Carely, & Mendoca, 2010).
Methods
In order to identify the evidence-based practices when it comes to the court diversion programs for the PMI a research was conducted from peer-reviewed literature, free-text searched on data bases like web science among others were carried out. There were also extensive searches of the internet for documents that have been published as well as unpublished references. There was also a retrieval of relevant documents from the websites that are associated with universities, information clearing houses, advocacy groups and all levels of government; a total of 145 articles that are related to court diversion were got. These articles were then assigned to a panel of thirteen investigators consisting of practitioners and researchers within the filed of police service, mental health, criminal justice who were family members of these PMI. These articles were assigned for review based on an investigators particular expertise. The information was then assessed with the help of standardized literature appraisal tools that contain research methods, numbers and measures of data, the findings of different authors and conceptual or methodical problems that are existent (Hartford, Carely, & Mendoca, 2010).
Findings/results
The results show that while most of the diversion programs consist of similar general procedures, they normally vary when it comes to staff and resources. However, very little is known on the long-term outcomes that are associated with these diversion programs. Only a few studies follow up and evaluate outcomes of the diversion of the offenders with metal illnesses. The results also show that it is generally difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of court diversion programs as a result of the regional /jurisdictional variations when it comes to treatment and resources. There is a study that supports a proposition that stable accommodation enhances a possibility of a detainee remaining in contact regularly with their treatment provider. Some literature points out that there are difficulties when it comes to creating awareness of diversion program option among court staff and lawyers who might lack the knowledge of mental issues. This implies that there should be training among nonclinical within the criminal justice system so that they can be able to recognize mental illnesses. Some diversion programs suggest that there should be daily roster checks by program staff of the remand and jail inmates to find clients, take the through an interview, recommend diversion is required and link them to mental health treatment (Hartford, Carely, & Mendoca, 2010).
We can therefore conclude that, first it acknowledges the difficulty of creating awareness of a pretrial diversion option among lawyers who might not know about mental health issues. Secondly, case finding procedures are very important when it comes to an early identification of the mentally ill offenders who require services. Third stable housing is important since it enhances the possibility of a detainee to remain in regular contact wit those who are providing them with treatment. Lastly, an active case management helps in the improvement of compliance and reduces a likelihood of recidivism.
Refrences
Hartford, K., Carely, R. & Mendoca, J. (2010).Pretrial Court Diversion of People
with Mental Illness.
Preifer, W. (2008). What is pretrial Diversion. Retrieved September 12, 2014 from https://suite.io/william-l-pfeifer-jr/vv72nm
