Davidson Fiona, Heffernan Edward, Greenberg David, Waterworth Rhondda, Burgess Philip
NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Offender Health, Kirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Australia.
School of Public Health, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Psychiatr Psychol Law. 2017 Jun 6;24(6):888-898. doi: 10.1080/13218719.2017.1327305. eCollection 2017.
Mental health and criminal justice legislation must provide the appropriate mechanisms for ensuring the assessment and care of mentally ill individuals. It must also balance the right to justice of these individuals with the rights of the community. In Australia, each jurisdiction has its own legislative provisions related to mental health, criminal legislation and sentencing, with variation in the mental health diversion options that are available. This article uses a national survey of court liaison services and mental health courts in Australia and a review of the relevant legislative frameworks to compare jurisdictional approaches to mental health diversion. Despite calls from the National Mental Health Commission for consistency, the Australian approach to the provision of mental health services to people in the criminal justice system is heterogeneous and piecemeal. Variation in the diversion pathways available to individuals with mental illness exists across Australia. The presence of problem-solving courts in some, but not all, jurisdictions results in differences in access to legal and treatment options.
精神卫生与刑事司法立法必须提供适当机制,以确保对精神病患者的评估与护理。它还必须在这些人的司法权利与社区权利之间取得平衡。在澳大利亚,每个司法管辖区都有其自身与精神卫生、刑事立法及量刑相关的法律规定,在可用的精神卫生转处选项方面存在差异。本文通过对澳大利亚法院联络服务和精神卫生法庭的全国性调查以及对相关立法框架的审查,来比较各司法管辖区在精神卫生转处方面的做法。尽管国家精神卫生委员会呼吁保持一致性,但澳大利亚向刑事司法系统中的人提供精神卫生服务的方式是多样且零散的。澳大利亚各地,为患有精神疾病的个人提供的转处途径存在差异。一些(但并非所有)司法管辖区设有问题解决法庭,这导致在获得法律和治疗选项方面存在差异。