Criminal Justice

iResearchNet




Criminal Justice > Criminology > Psychology and Criminology > Mental Disorders and Crime

Mental Disorders and Crime




Mental disorders and crime examines one of the most consequential and most frequently misunderstood relationships in criminal justice — the connection between psychiatric illness and criminal behavior. Public perception, inflamed by selective media coverage of high-profile violent crimes committed by individuals with mental illness, consistently overstates the association between mental disorder and violence, attributing to mental illness a causal role in crime that the empirical evidence does not support at the population level. At the same time, genuine associations between specific mental disorders and specific crime types, mediated by symptom severity, co-occurring substance use, and social contextual factors, are real and have important implications for the design of mental health diversion programs, criminal justice treatment mandates, and the reform of a system that has become — by default rather than by design — the primary institution managing severe mental illness in the United States.

Psychology and Criminology approaches this relationship through both directions simultaneously: the role of mental disorder in criminal behavior, and the role of the criminal justice system in the lives of people with mental illness. These two directions are not symmetric in the epidemiological evidence — far more people with mental illness are victims of crime than perpetrators, and far more people with mental illness cycle through jails and prisons without their conditions being addressed than receive the treatment that would reduce both their suffering and their criminal justice involvement. A criminology that takes mental disorder seriously must engage both directions and resist the simplifications that political discourse about mental illness and violence consistently produces.

Introduction

The relationship between mental disorder and crime is confounded by several factors that make simple causal claims — in either direction — inadequate. First, mental disorders are heterogeneous: the umbrella category encompasses conditions ranging from severe psychotic disorders with direct symptom-crime pathways to mood and anxiety disorders whose relationship to crime is weak and context-dependent. Research that aggregates across diagnostic categories obscures the specific disorder-specific pathways that are criminologically consequential. Second, the association between mental disorder and crime is substantially mediated by co-occurring substance use disorder, which is far more strongly associated with crime than mental disorder alone and which is far more prevalent in criminal justice samples than in the general population with mental illness. Third, many individuals with mental illness who come into criminal justice contact do so for minor offenses — trespass, disorderly conduct, low-level drug offenses — that reflect social marginalization, inadequate housing, and failure of community mental health systems rather than the symptom-driven violence that public narrative emphasizes.




These confounding factors do not eliminate the mental disorder-crime association but they substantially qualify it. When researchers control for substance use co-morbidity, for prior criminal history, for socioeconomic disadvantage, and for the specific symptom dimensions most strongly associated with crime (active psychotic symptoms, substance use, medication non-adherence), the remaining association between mental disorder and crime is meaningful for specific high-risk subgroups but modest for the mentally ill population as a whole.

Epidemiology of Mental Disorder in the Criminal Justice System

The Scale of the Problem

The scale of mental illness in the American criminal justice system is extraordinary by any comparative standard. Research by the Bureau of Justice Statistics has documented that approximately 20% of state prison inmates and 24% of jail detainees report having a recent history of mental illness — rates three to four times higher than the general population prevalence of serious mental illness (approximately 5–6%). Research on specific diagnoses has found that major depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and PTSD are all substantially over-represented in criminal justice populations relative to the general population, with the over-representation most extreme for psychotic disorders, substance use disorders, and personality disorders.

The concentration of mental illness in jails rather than prisons is particularly significant, because jails are primarily short-term detention facilities with the fewest resources, the shortest treatment contacts, and the most chaotic environments for addressing mental health needs. Research by the Treatment Advocacy Center has documented that there are now approximately ten times more people with severe mental illness in jails and prisons than in state psychiatric hospitals — a dramatic reversal of the institutional balance that characterized the pre-deinstitutionalization era — establishing the criminal justice system as the largest de facto mental health system in the country despite being among the least equipped to fulfill that function.

The historical pathway to this situation runs through deinstitutionalization — the decades-long closure of state psychiatric hospitals beginning in the 1960s — and the chronic underfunding of the community mental health infrastructure that was promised as the replacement for hospital-based care. Research by Torrey and colleagues documenting that community mental health centers were built at a fraction of the planned capacity, and that funding for remaining services has been repeatedly cut through fiscal downturns, establishes that the criminalization of mental illness is not an inevitable consequence of deinstitutionalization but of the specific policy failure to fund adequate community alternatives.

Race, Mental Illness, and Criminal Justice

The intersection of racial inequality and mental illness in the criminal justice system compounds each system’s inequities in ways that disproportionately burden Black and Latino Americans with mental illness. Research documenting that Black individuals with mental illness are more likely to be incarcerated rather than diverted to treatment than comparable white individuals with mental illness — and that this disparity reflects both racially differential policing and racially differential access to the mental health services that enable diversion — establishes the racial dimension of mental illness criminalization as a distinct concern alongside the general problem of inadequate mental health infrastructure.

Research on the specific experiences of Black women with mental illness in the criminal justice system — a population whose specific vulnerabilities at the intersection of race, gender, mental illness, and poverty are rarely adequately captured in the research literature — has documented patterns of profound disadvantage: high rates of trauma and PTSD, inadequate mental health screening, housing instability, and the compound stigma of criminal justice involvement and mental illness that makes community reintegration particularly difficult. Understanding and addressing these intersectional vulnerabilities requires data collection, program design, and policy reform that specifically attends to the specific experiences of the most marginalized subgroups rather than addressing mental illness and criminal justice involvement as though they were unrelated to race and gender.

Table 1. Mental Disorders and Crime: Epidemiology and Risk

Disorder Prevalence in General Population Prevalence in Prison/Jail Crime Association Primary Mechanism Evidence Quality
Schizophrenia spectrum ~1% ~5–10% Moderate — primarily violence mediated by threat/command hallucinations and substance use Active psychotic symptoms; threat/control override; co-morbid substance use Moderate — confounders reduce net effect
Bipolar disorder ~2–4% ~8–15% Moderate — elevated in manic/mixed states Impulsivity in mania; irritability; substance use co-morbidity Moderate — state-dependent
Major depression ~7% ~15–20% Weak to moderate — primarily self-harm; some violence in severe cases Hopelessness; irritability; in rare cases, homicide-suicide Moderate — context-dependent
Antisocial personality ~3% general; ~50% prison Dominant in criminal samples Strong — primary predictor of general criminal behavior Callousness; rule violation; impulsivity Strong — definitionally linked
PTSD ~7% ~30–48% (trauma-exposed) Moderate — reactive violence; substance use co-morbidity Hyperarousal; threat reactivity; substance use Moderate — mediation complex
Substance use disorder ~10–15% ~65–75% Very strong Direct disinhibition; procurement crime; economic crime Very strong — primary mediator

Substance Use Disorders as the Primary Mediator

Research consistently establishes that substance use disorder (SUD) is the single strongest individual-level predictor of criminal behavior and is the primary mediator of the relationship between mental disorders and crime. The co-occurrence of mental illness and substance use disorder — sometimes called dual diagnosis or co-occurring disorders — is extraordinarily common: research by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) found that approximately 50% of individuals with a serious mental illness also have a substance use disorder, while approximately 37% of individuals with an alcohol use disorder and 53% of those with a drug use disorder have at least one serious mental illness. Within criminal justice populations, co-occurring disorders are the rule rather than the exception.

The mechanisms through which substance use mediates the mental disorder-crime relationship are multiple. Acute intoxication disinhibits behavior and impairs judgment in ways that elevate crime risk regardless of underlying mental illness. Economic dependence on substances drives property crime among individuals who cannot afford the substances to which they are addicted. The social environments of drug acquisition and use expose vulnerable individuals with mental illness to criminal networks and criminal opportunities that they would otherwise avoid. And the pharmacological effects of some substances — particularly stimulants and certain dissociative drugs — can produce transient psychotic states that increase aggression in individuals who do not have primary psychotic disorders alongside those who do.

Research evaluating treatments that address both mental illness and substance use simultaneously — integrated dual diagnosis treatment (IDDT) — has found substantially better outcomes than sequential or parallel treatment of each condition separately. The theoretical rationale is straightforward: treating mental illness without addressing substance use leaves the primary mediator of criminal behavior unaddressed, while treating substance use without addressing the mental illness from which it often provides self-medication leaves the underlying driver of substance use intact. Research by Drake, Mueser, and colleagues synthesizing the IDDT evidence found consistent improvements in both symptom and substance use outcomes, with some studies documenting parallel improvements in criminal justice contacts.

Specific Disorders and Crime Pathways

Psychosis, Threat/Control Override, and Violence

Research on the specific pathways through which psychotic disorders elevate violence risk has moved beyond the simple “schizophrenia causes violence” claim to identify the specific symptom dimensions and contextual factors that mediate the relationship. The threat/control override (TCO) hypothesis — developed by Link, Stueve, and colleagues — proposed that the specific symptom cluster involving delusions of persecution (believing others intend harm) and passivity symptoms (believing one’s mind is controlled by outside forces) elevates violence risk by generating subjective justification for defensive aggression and by reducing the sense of personal control over aggressive impulses. Research testing the TCO hypothesis has found support for its predictions: individuals with active threat/control override symptoms show elevated violence relative to those with other psychotic symptoms, and this elevation is not fully accounted for by substance use or socioeconomic factors.

Command hallucinations — the auditory hallucinations that instruct the recipient to perform specific actions — have been studied as potential mediators of violence in psychotic disorders, with research finding that compliance with command hallucinations is more likely when the voice is perceived as powerful and benevolent, when compliance has been reinforced by prior positive outcomes, and when the commanded behavior is of low severity relative to the recipient’s usual behavioral range. The violence directly attributable to command hallucination compliance is relatively rare but represents a specific mechanism that the general schizophrenia-violence association encompasses.

Medication non-adherence — a major driver of the treatment gap in severe mental illness — substantially elevates violence risk in psychotic disorders by allowing the active symptom states through which the disorder-violence pathway operates to persist without interruption. Research documenting that mandated community treatment, intensive case management, and assertive community treatment can improve medication adherence and reduce violence in high-risk individuals with psychotic disorders has established these treatment approaches as the most evidence-based responses to violence risk in this population — more effective and less costly than incarceration.

Personality Disorders and Criminal Behavior

Antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) — defined by a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of others’ rights beginning in childhood — is the personality disorder most directly defined by its association with criminal behavior and is extraordinarily over-represented in prison populations, with estimates suggesting 40–60% of male inmates meeting diagnostic criteria. The definitional overlap between ASPD and criminal behavior creates interpretive challenges for understanding causation: because prior criminal behavior is itself a diagnostic criterion for ASPD, the association between ASPD and crime is partly tautological.

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) — characterized by emotional dysregulation, identity instability, impulsive self-destructive behavior, and intense unstable relationships — is substantially over-represented in criminal justice populations, particularly among women, where it is diagnosed at substantially higher rates than in men. Research on BPD and crime has documented that the impulsivity and emotional reactivity dimensions of BPD predict reactive aggression and certain forms of interpersonal crime, while the identity instability and chronic emptiness dimensions predict self-destructive behavior that may itself lead to criminal justice contact through self-harm, substance use, and chaotic personal relationships.

Homelessness, Mental Illness, and the Criminal Justice Cycle

The relationship between mental illness, homelessness, and criminal justice contact represents one of the clearest examples of how system failures create criminal justice involvement through pathways that have nothing to do with dangerous or predatory behavior. Research documenting that a substantial proportion of homeless individuals have severe mental illness — estimates range from 25% to 40% depending on the sample and measurement approach — and that a substantial proportion of homeless individuals have criminal justice records — frequently for survival-related offenses such as trespassing, disorderly conduct, and open container violations — establishes the specific pathway through which housing instability translates mental illness into criminal justice contact.

Research by Greenberg and Rosenheck on the relationship between homelessness and incarceration in a nationally representative sample found that homelessness substantially predicted incarceration and that incarceration substantially predicted subsequent homelessness — establishing a bidirectional relationship in which each state elevates the risk of the other, creating the revolving door of homelessness-incarceration-homelessness that characterizes the lives of many people with serious mental illness in urban areas. Research on the specific criminal justice contacts of homeless individuals with mental illness found that the vast majority of their arrests were for misdemeanor offenses — the criminalization of survival behaviors — rather than for the violent crimes that public concern about mental illness and crime emphasizes.

The policy response with the strongest evidence is Housing First — the approach that provides permanent supportive housing to homeless individuals with mental illness without preconditions of sobriety or treatment participation, and then provides wraparound mental health and substance use services alongside stable housing. Research in multiple cities has found that Housing First substantially reduces both homelessness recurrence and criminal justice contacts relative to conventional treatment-first approaches, while producing better mental health outcomes at no greater cost. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration endorses Housing First as an evidence-based approach to both homelessness and the mental illness-criminal justice cycle that homelessness drives.

Mental Health Courts and Diversion Programs

Mental health courts — specialized courts that divert eligible defendants with mental illness from conventional criminal prosecution into judicially supervised treatment programs — represent the most extensively evaluated mental health diversion intervention in American criminal justice. The evaluation literature on mental health courts has found consistent positive effects on mental health outcomes and criminal recidivism for participants compared to conventionally processed defendants with comparable mental health needs, with meta-analyses by Sarteschi and colleagues finding average recidivism reductions of approximately 20–25% across implemented programs.

Research on the specific features of mental health courts that predict better outcomes has found that programs following the behavioral health court principles developed by the Council of State Governments Justice Center — including judicial oversight with graduated sanctions, treatment services matched to criminogenic need and mental health need simultaneously, community supervision, and structured reentry planning — produce better outcomes than those implementing these elements partially or inconsistently. The therapeutic jurisprudence theoretical framework — which emphasizes the law’s role as a therapeutic or anti-therapeutic agent and prescribes legal processes designed to maximize therapeutic outcomes — provides the theoretical justification for the collaborative, treatment-focused model that mental health courts implement.

Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) training — which provides law enforcement officers with intensive training in mental health recognition, de-escalation, and community mental health resources — is the most widely implemented police-level diversion approach and has shown positive effects on reducing arrests of people with mental illness and increasing diversion to treatment in controlled evaluations. Research by Steadman and colleagues comparing CIT to other diversion models found that CIT reduces arrests and increases treatment referrals specifically when community mental health services with adequate capacity to receive diverted individuals are available — establishing that law enforcement diversion is only as effective as the community treatment system it diverts to.

Trauma, PTSD, and Criminal Justice Involvement

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) — the psychiatric condition that can develop following exposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence — is substantially over-represented in criminal justice populations, reflecting both the high rates of trauma exposure in the populations most heavily policed and the specific pathways through which PTSD symptomatology can contribute to criminal justice involvement. Research by Kubiak on PTSD in criminal justice populations has documented prevalence rates of 30–48% among incarcerated women and 20–30% among incarcerated men — rates many times higher than general population estimates of 7–8%.

The pathways through which PTSD contributes to criminal justice involvement are multiple and deserve specification. The hyperarousal and threat reactivity that characterize PTSD can produce aggressive responses to perceived threats that escalate interpersonal conflicts into criminal violence. The avoidance and numbing symptoms of PTSD drive substance use as a self-medication strategy for intrusive symptoms, contributing to the substance use pathway to crime reviewed above. The emotional dysregulation and impulsivity associated with complex PTSD — the variant associated with childhood and prolonged interpersonal trauma — predicts the reactive aggression and self-destructive behavior that generates criminal justice contact through multiple channels.

Research by Chesney-Lind and others on the pathways into criminal justice involvement for women has documented that childhood sexual and physical abuse — the primary traumatic antecedents of PTSD in incarcerated women — is both dramatically more prevalent in incarcerated women than in the general female population and is a primary predictor of subsequent criminal involvement through the specific pathways described above. The feminist pathways research on women’s criminalization — reviewed in the gender and crime articles — establishes that understanding women’s criminal justice involvement requires understanding their trauma histories as systematically produced by specific social structural conditions of gender-based violence rather than as individual misfortune.

Trauma-informed corrections — the organizational approach that trains staff in trauma awareness, implements procedures that minimize retraumatization, and provides trauma-specific treatment within correctional settings — represents the evidence-based response to PTSD in criminal justice populations. Research on trauma-informed care implementation in correctional settings has found improvements in both staff behavior and institutional climate, with some evidence for reduced use of restrictive housing and reduced institutional misconduct among trauma-informed facilities relative to comparison facilities.

Victimization of People with Mental Illness

The vast majority of individuals with mental illness who come into contact with the criminal justice system do so as victims of crime rather than as perpetrators — a reality that receives far less attention in public discourse and research literature than the offender dimension of the mental illness-crime relationship. Research by Teplin and colleagues in a landmark study found that people with severe mental illness were 11 times more likely to be victims of violent crime than the general population — a victimization rate that dwarfs any elevation in perpetration and that establishes mental illness as primarily a victim vulnerability rather than primarily an offender risk factor.

The mechanisms through which mental illness elevates victimization risk include the impaired threat recognition and avoidance behavior that acute psychotic symptoms produce, the social isolation and poverty that concentrate victimization risk, the residential instability that places individuals with mental illness in high-crime environments, and the exploitation by criminal associates that severe cognitive disorganization enables. Research on the specific victimization experiences of incarcerated individuals with mental illness — finding substantially elevated rates of physical and sexual assault within correctional facilities — documents that the criminal justice system itself is a site of victimization for the mentally ill individuals it incarcerates, compounding the treatment failure with an additional harm that incarceration for this population consistently produces.

Treatment in Correctional Settings

Research on mental health treatment in correctional settings has documented a persistent and substantial treatment gap: despite the high prevalence of mental illness in jails and prisons, the majority of incarcerated individuals with mental illness receive no treatment during their incarceration. Research by Prins and colleagues on psychiatric service availability in state prisons found substantial variation — with some states providing relatively comprehensive services and others providing only crisis-level intervention — and documented that treatment availability correlates with state correctional budget but not with the prevalence of mental illness in the state’s correctional population.

Evidence-based treatment approaches for criminal justice populations with mental illness include the Risk-Need-Responsivity framework’s application to co-occurring mental health and criminogenic needs, the Modified Therapeutic Community model adapted for criminal justice settings, and the APIC model (Assess, Plan, Identify, Coordinate) for reentry transition planning. Research on the effectiveness of these approaches in correctional settings has found consistent positive effects on mental health outcomes and, in programs with sufficient intensity and fidelity, on recidivism. The National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration have developed specific guidelines for mental health treatment in criminal justice settings that reflect the evidence base for these approaches.

Policy Implications and Reform

The evidence on mental disorder and crime generates a coherent set of policy implications that the political economy of American criminal justice has been slow to implement. First, investing in community mental health infrastructure — including assertive community treatment, supported housing, and peer support programs — would reduce the emergency contacts, hospitalizations, and criminal justice contacts that untreated mental illness generates, producing public safety and cost benefits that dwarfs the investment required. Second, expanding mental health diversion programs at every stage of criminal justice processing — pre-arrest, pre-booking, pre-trial, and post-conviction — would reduce the criminalization of mental illness that has made jails and prisons the de facto primary mental health system. Third, mandating adequate mental health screening, assessment, and treatment in correctional facilities would reduce the institutional harm that untreated mental illness in corrections produces and improve the reentry outcomes of the 600,000 individuals released from American prisons annually.

The political challenge is not primarily evidential — the evidence for these investments is substantial — but fiscal and organizational, reflecting the fragmentation of mental health and criminal justice systems across state, county, and city agencies with different funding streams, different accountability structures, and different organizational cultures that make the coordination these reforms require administratively demanding even when it is politically supported.

Conclusion

Mental disorders and crime are connected through specific pathways involving particular symptom dimensions, particularly co-occurring substance use, and particularly severe social marginalization — and disconnected from crime for the vast majority of people with mental illness who never come into criminal justice contact. Understanding this specificity is essential for both the public health response to mental illness and the criminal justice response to crime: it directs treatment investment toward the high-risk subgroups where intervention produces the greatest public safety returns, it supports the development of diversion programs that match the specific mechanisms through which mental illness and criminal justice intersect, and it resists the simplistic equation of mental illness with dangerousness that stigmatizes millions of people with mental illness while leaving the actual drivers of criminal behavior — substance use, social disadvantage, and inadequate treatment — largely unaddressed.

The reform agenda that this evidence supports — community mental health investment, mental health diversion, adequate correctional treatment, and reentry planning that addresses both mental health and criminogenic needs simultaneously — is neither radical nor unaffordable. What it requires is the political will to treat mental illness as a health problem requiring health system solutions rather than a crime problem requiring criminal justice solutions, and the institutional coordination to deliver those solutions across the fragmented system that American federalism has produced.

References

  1. Baillargeon, J., Binswanger, I. A., Penn, J. V., Williams, B. A., & Murray, O. J. (2009). Psychiatric disorders and repeat incarcerations: The revolving prison door. American Journal of Psychiatry, 166(1), 103–109. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2008.08030416
  2. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2017). Mental health problems of prison and jail inmates (NCJ 213600). U.S. Department of Justice. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/mhppji.pdf
  3. Dvoskin, J. A., Skeem, J. L., Novaco, R. W., & Douglas, K. S. (Eds.). (2012). Using social science to reduce violent offending. Oxford University Press.
  4. Fazel, S., & Danesh, J. (2002). Serious mental disorder in 23,000 prisoners: A systematic review of 62 surveys. The Lancet, 359(9306), 545–550. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07740-1
  5. Fazel, S., & Grann, M. (2006). The population impact of severe mental disorder on violent crime. American Journal of Psychiatry, 163(8), 1397–1403. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.2006.163.8.1397
  6. Hiday, V. A. (1997). Understanding the connection between mental illness and violence. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 20(4), 399–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2527(97)00028-9
  7. Junginger, J. (1995). Command hallucinations and the prediction of dangerousness. Psychiatric Services, 46(9), 911–914. https://doi.org/10.1176/ps.46.9.911
  8. Lamb, H. R., & Weinberger, L. E. (2005). The shift of psychiatric inpatient care from hospitals to jails and prisons. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 33(4), 529–534.
  9. Link, B. G., Stueve, A., & Phelan, J. (1998). Psychotic symptoms and violent behaviors: Probing the components of “threat/control-override” symptoms. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 33(Suppl. 1), S55–S60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001270050210
  10. Markowitz, F. E. (2011). Mental illness, crime, and violence: Risk, context, and social control. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16(1), 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2010.10.003
  11. McNiel, D. E., & Binder, R. L. (2007). Effectiveness of a mental health court in reducing criminal recidivism and violence. American Journal of Psychiatry, 164(9), 1395–1403. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2007.06101664
  12. Morgan, R. D., Fisher, W. H., Duan, N., Mandracchia, J. T., & Murray, D. (2010). Prevalence of criminal thinking among state prison inmates with serious mental illness. Law and Human Behavior, 34(4), 324–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-009-9189-2
  13. Munetz, M. R., & Griffin, P. A. (2006). Use of the sequential intercept model as an approach to decriminalization of people with serious mental illness. Psychiatric Services, 57(4), 544–549. https://doi.org/10.1176/ps.2006.57.4.544
  14. National Institute of Mental Health. (2023). Mental illness. https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/mental-illness
  15. Ogloff, J. R. P. (2006). Psychopathy/antisocial personality disorder conundrum. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 40(6–7), 519–528. https://doi.org/10.1080/j.1440-1614.2006.01834.x
  16. Perez, A., Leifman, S., & Estrada, A. (2003). Reversing the criminalization of mental illness. Crime & Delinquency, 49(1), 62–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128702239236
  17. Prins, S. J. (2014). Prevalence of mental illnesses in U.S. state prisons: A systematic review. Psychiatric Services, 65(7), 862–872. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201300166
  18. Sarteschi, C. M., Vaughn, M. G., & Kim, K. (2011). Assessing the effectiveness of mental health courts: A quantitative review. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39(1), 12–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.11.003
  19. Skeem, J. L., Manchak, S., & Peterson, J. K. (2011). Correctional policy for offenders with mental illness: Creating a new paradigm for recidivism reduction. Law and Human Behavior, 35(2), 110–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-010-9223-7
  20. Steadman, H. J., Deane, M. W., Borum, R., & Morrissey, J. P. (2000). Comparing outcomes of major models of police responses to mental health emergencies. Psychiatric Services, 51(5), 645–649. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.51.5.645
  21. Swanson, J. W., Holzer, C. E., III, Ganju, V. K., & Jono, R. T. (1990). Violence and psychiatric disorder in the community: Evidence from the Epidemiologic Catchment Area surveys. Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 41(7), 761–770. https://doi.org/10.1176/ps.41.7.761
  22. Teasdale, B., Silver, E., & Monahan, J. (2006). Gender, threat/control-override delusions, and violence. Law and Human Behavior, 30(6), 649–658. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9044-x
  23. Teplin, L. A., McClelland, G. M., Abram, K. M., & Weiner, D. A. (2005). Crime victimization in adults with severe mental illness. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62(8), 911–921. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.62.8.911
  24. Torrey, E. F., Kennard, A. D., Eslinger, D., Lamb, R., & Pavle, J. (2010). More mentally ill persons are in jails and prisons than hospitals: A survey of the states. Treatment Advocacy Center. https://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org
  25. Treatment Advocacy Center. (2023). Serious mental illness and the criminal justice system. https://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/key-issues/criminalization-of-mental-illness
  26. Vitacco, M. J., Heilbrun, K., & Lander, T. (2012). Linking psychopathy to criminal violence. In H. Häkkänen-Nyholm & J.-O. Nyholm (Eds.), Psychopathy and law (pp. 109–130). Wiley.