To Show That … the Courts Are on the Level: Addressing Questions of Competency and Adequacy of Counsel in Mental Health Courts.

• In Event: Legal Services for the Indigent – Legal Representation and Mental Health

Abstract

Although there has been significant attention paid to the recent proliferation of mental health courts (e.g., Perlin, 2013), there are two important concerns that have not been the focus of much scholarly attention: the lack of concern paid to the question of competency in the mental health court process, and the lack of concern paid to the question of the quality of counsel made available to individuals in the mental health court process (Erickson, 2006). If it is true that “the very types of people MHCs were designed for may be the people who do not fully comprehend the purpose, requirements, and roles in the courts,” (Redlich, 2005), and if the assumption that adequate counsel will be present to represent clients at such hearings so as to guarantee liberty values is a “false hope,” (Carney, 2008), then it is essential that scholars and policy makers –in law, in criminology, and in the mental health professions – need to turn their attention to these issues, so as best to ensure that defendants receive dignity and respect, are given a sense of voice and validation, and are treated with fairness and good faith, in ways that comport with the tenets of therapeutic jurisprudence.

Author

• Michael Louis Perlin, New York Law School / Mental Disability Law & Policy Associates