I. The general court recognizes the critical need in this state for the criminal justice system to identify effective sentencing options when an offender has committed a crime that is a result of or related to mental illness. All offenders must be held accountable for their actions. However, a growing body of research demonstrates that traditional sentencing options may not be effective if an offender has a mental illness. Requiring that accountability and rehabilitative treatment, in addition to or in place of, conventional and expensive incarceration, will promote public safety, promote the welfare of the individuals involved, reduce the burden upon the public treasury, and benefit the common welfare of this state. The goals of this chapter shall include:
(a)Enhancing community safety a
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
I. The general court recognizes the critical need in this state for the criminal justice system to identify effective sentencing options when an offender has committed a crime that is a result of or related to mental illness. All offenders must be held accountable for their actions. However, a growing body of research demonstrates that traditional sentencing options may not be effective if an offender has a mental illness. Requiring that accountability and rehabilitative treatment, in addition to or in place of, conventional and expensive incarceration, will promote public safety, promote the welfare of the individuals involved, reduce the burden upon the public treasury, and benefit the common welfare of this state. The goals of this chapter shall include:
(a) Enhancing community safety and quality of life for citizens;
(b) Reducing recidivism;
(c) Increasing the accountability of offenders;
(d) Restoring offenders to productive, law-abiding, and taxpaying citizens;
(e) Promoting effective interaction and use of resources among criminal justice and community agencies, including, but not limited to, effective treatment of mental illnesses;
(f) Reducing the costs of incarceration; and
(g) Improving the efficiency of the criminal justice system by promoting evidence-based sentencing for offenders with mental illness.
II. While working in a mental health court reshapes the traditional roles of judges and lawyers, ethical duties do not significantly differ from those in traditional courtrooms. Mental health court judges and lawyers must adhere to the standards set forth in the Model Code of Judicial Conduct, the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, and the American Bar Association Standards of Criminal Justice. The proper exercise of the role of judge or lawyer in the mental health court need not conflict with the professional's ethical obligations and can enable judges and attorneys to fulfill the highest aspirations of their professional ethics while embarking on an innovative way to break the cycle of crime. Mental health court judges and attorneys must remain continually cognizant of the due process rights guaranteed to all citizens and the state's substantial interest in maintaining effective and efficient judicial and penal systems.