Analyzing Offense Patterns as a Function of Mental Illness to Test the Criminalization Hypothesis

Department of Psychology and Social Behavior, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-7085, USA.
Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) (Impact Factor: 1.99). 12/2010; 61(12):1217-22. DOI: 10.1176/
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Programs for offenders with mental illness seem to be based on a hypothesis that untreated symptoms are the main source of criminal behavior and that linkage with psychiatric services is the solution. This study tested this criminalization hypothesis, which implies that these individuals have unique patterns of offending.
Participants were 220 parolees; 111 had a serious mental illness, and 109 did not. Interview data and records were used to reliably classify offenders into one of five groups, based on their lifetime pattern of offending: psychotic, disadvantaged, reactive, instrumental, or gang- or drug-related affiliation. The distributions of those with and without serious mental illness were compared.
A small but important minority of offenders with a mental illness (7%, N=8) fit the criminalization hypothesis, in that their criminal behavior was a direct result of psychosis (5%, N=6) or comprised minor "survival" crimes related to poverty (2%, N=2). However, the reactive group contained virtually all offenders with a mental illness (90%, N=100) and the vast majority of offenders without a mental illness (68%, N=74), suggesting that criminal behavior for both groups chiefly was driven by hostility, disinhibition, and emotional reactivity. For most offenders with a mental illness in the reactive group, crime was also driven by substance dependence.
Offenders with serious mental illness manifested heterogeneous patterns of offending that may stem from a variety of sources. Although psychiatric service linkage may reduce recidivism for a visible minority, treatment that targets impulsivity and other common criminogenic needs may be needed to prevent recidivism for the larger group.

    • "Rather, people with mental illnesses are involved in criminal activity similar to those perpetrated by their peers of the same socioeconomic status. For example, Peterson et al. (2010) found no distinct difference between the offending patterns of those with serious mental illnesses and their peers without diagnoses. Like other offenders, people with mental illnesses engage in crimes involving property and drugs, crimes that also are unlikely to end in instrumental violence (Draine et al., 2002; Fisher et al., 2006). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Research SummaryThis study examined all “use-of-force” reports collected by the Portland Police Bureau in Portland, Oregon, between 2008 and 2011, to determine whether their encounters with people with mental illnesses are more likely to result in injury to officers or subjects when force is used. Although several factors significantly predicted the likelihood of injury to either subjects or officers, mental illness was not one of them.Policy ImplicationsPolice consider interactions with people with mental illnesses to be extremely dangerous (Margarita, 1980). Our results question the accuracy of this belief. As such, this “dangerousness” assertion may result in unnecessary stigmatization that may prevent people with mental illnesses from accessing needed services (cf. Corrigan et al., 2005) as witnesses or victims of crime. Policies that reduce stigma may help increase police effectiveness. Furthermore, efforts should be made to increase the availability and accuracy of data on this issue.
    Criminology & Public Policy 05/2015; DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12127
  • Source
    • "First, psychiatric symptoms seem to directly cause a small but important minority of offenses among OMIs. Specifically, across jail (Junginger, Claypoole, Laygo, & Crisanti, 2006), parole (Peterson et al., 2010), and psychiatric samples (Monahan et al., 2001), delusions and/or hallucinations precede violent or other criminal behavior up to 10% of the time. Recent research indicates that these symptom-based crimes do not " cluster " by person; instead, they are distributed quite randomly across OMIs (some OMIs have no symptom-based crimes; others have a symptombased crime among more general crimes; Peterson, 2012). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Many programs for offenders with mental illness (OMIs) seem to assume that serious mental illness directly causes criminal justice involvement. To help evaluate this assumption, we assessed a matched sample of 221 parolees with and without mental illness and then followed them for over 1 year to track recidivism. First, compared with their relatively healthy counterparts, OMIs were equally likely to be rearrested, but were more likely to return to prison custody. Second, beyond risk factors unique to mental illness (e.g., acute symptoms; operationalized with part of the Historical-Clinical-Risk Management-20; Webster, Douglas, Eaves, & Hart, 1997), OMIs also had significantly more general risk factors for recidivism (e.g., antisocial pattern; operationalized with the Level of Service/Case Management Inventory; Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, 2004) than offenders without mental illness. Third, these general risk factors significantly predicted recidivism, with no incremental utility added by risk factors unique to mental illness. Implications for broadening the policy model to explicitly target general risk factors for recidivism such as antisocial traits are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved).
    Law and Human Behavior 12/2013; 38(3). DOI:10.1037/lhb0000054 · 2.16 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Specifically, (a) mental health treatment rarely reduces recidivism (see Skeem, Manchak, & Peterson, 2010) and (b) the strongest predictors of offending (i.e., the central eight risk factors) are shared by those with-and without-mental disorder (Bonta, Law, & Hanson, 1998, Phillips et al., 2005). Further, although some clinical factors such as anger and impulsivity are related to offense for offenders in general and may be indicative of an antisocial personality pattern (Andrews et al., 2006; Peterson , Skeem, Hart, Vidal, & Keith, 2010), symptoms such as psychosis lead directly lead to arrest for only a small minority of offenders with mental disorder (see Junginger, Claypoole, Laygo, & Cristiani, 2006; Peterson et al., 2010). Thus, major mental disorder (i.e., schizophrenia, major depression, and bipolar disorder) is best characterized as a non-criminogenic need for most offenders with mental disorder, and singular focus on it is not likely to reduce recidivism. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: As the correctional population continues to increase, probation agencies struggle to adequately supervise offenders with unique needs, including those with mental disorder. Although more than 100 U.S. probation agencies have implemented specialty mental health case-loads, little is known about their practices. Based on detailed observations of 83 audio-taped meetings, we examined interactions between probationers and officers in a prototypic specialty agency, focusing on the extent to which practices comport with evidence-based risk reduction principles. We found that specialty officers (a) more frequently discussed probationers' general mental health than any individual criminogenic need, (b) chiefly questioned, directed, affirmed, and supported (rather than confronted) probationers, and (c) relied more heavily on neutral strategies and positive pressures (e.g., inducements) rather than negative pressures (e.g., threats of incarceration) to monitor and enforce compliance. Implications for "what works" to promote community integration for probationers with mental disorder are discussed.
    Law and Human Behavior 04/2012; 36(2):109-19. DOI:10.1037/h0093961 · 2.16 Impact Factor
Show more