Les tribunaux de santé mentale américains, un exemple de programme de déjudiciarisation

Abstract

ObjectiveThe purpose of the article is to present what are Mental Health Courts (MHC) that were developed in the wake of the movement of deinstitutionalization in the United States. Material and methodsLiterature review. ResultsDesigned in the 1990s, MHC are a form of diversion based on the principle of therapeutic jurisprudence: this individualized care program offer an alternative to prison. Today, there are more than 400 in the United States. Even though their functioning varies according to the States, they rely on common theoretical principles. Overall, many studies show a decrease of recidivism for participants of MHC compared to those who did not participate while they were eligible, whether in the short, medium or long term. Studies also present high levels of procedural justice and low levels of perceived coercion. If the studies show the efficiency of the TSM, some actors insist on their limits. They consider that a part of their efficiency would, in fact rely on a too restrictive selection amongst the potential candidates. More generally, the TSM are criticized because they have been conceived to overcome the deficiencies of a health system that would need to be reformed because it doesn’t offer care upstream the judicial system. Several other aspects are discussed but also criticised, whether it is about the consent of the participants (what understanding of the programs and their juridicial foundation and, later on, which real part of volunteering in their commitment?) or about the dropping of charges, which are apparently not systematic in some States. ConclusionMHC offer some promising leads but do not embody a solution to the complex problems found in the interface between mental care and justice.