Masters in Criminal Justice Management ~ 2.5

x AALiYah

Critical Analysis of the 'Criminal Justice System'

week 5-7 objectives:

• Critical Analysis

• Professor vs 'Officer'

• "Specialty Courts"

discussions.

excerpt on my additions to the discussion: "Put yourself in the position of police chief. Examine this case study not as an individual of a particular race,  but just as a chief who has to solve a problem. Engage in critical thinking from a leadership perspective. This is a recent case that you may recall. A white police sergeant arrested a black professor and the President weighed in, criticizing the police. 

The quote below is from a newspaper article: 

"Professor Gates is jimmying his own locked door because he left his keys somewhere. Someone calls the police regarding this "suspicious" behavior — probably understandable, white or black. But when the police arrive, Gates doesn't see a routine investigation by the police. He sees a white police officer assuming the worst in the behavior of a black man. The professor is a black man in America. A man who has seen the worst in racial bigotry — indeed a man who has studied all the aspects of racial relations in America. A man who has hair-trigger assumptions running around in his head based on real-life experiences. He gets angry — not just at this police officer, but at the injustices that relate to racial confrontations between black America and law enforcement.Sgt. James Crowley is called in to do a routine investigation of a possible burglary. He has unique qualifications in race relations — he taught a class on racial profiling. All he knows as he approaches the house is that somebody tried to enter the house without a key. The man he confronts is black — and as a police officer he understands the inherent suspicion of police in the African-American community. He starts out calmly, but the man becomes angry quickly. It becomes clear that the man is who he says he is, but the belligerence continues and escalates. As a police officer, he must regain control of the situation.And then there is President Obama. Not just an aloof arbiter of opinion but also a black man in America. And a black man who knows Gates personally. It is difficult not to weigh in on such a situation that the president knows has meaning to the racial norms of a complicated society."https://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2009/07/gates-crowley-incident-we-must-learn 

As the police chief, look carefully at the issues. Go online and learn more. Who was right and who was wrong? What lessons can be learned from this that can be applied to your department? How will you prevent this from happening in your department?  

Initial Post

 Discussion Questions

Examine this case study not as an individual of a particular race,  but just as a chief who has to solve a problem. Engage in critical thinking from a leadership perspective. This is a recent case that you may recall. A white police sergeant arrested a black professor and the President weighed in, criticizing the police.

Who was right and who was wrong? What lessons can be learned from this that can be applied to your department? How will you prevent this from happening in your department? 

• As Chief, AaliYah’s Leadership Perspective

  • It is interesting that colors (black and white) are used to describe two groups, while land names are used to describe all other groups

  • “black man in America” certainly has meaning

    • Could it be: an unknowingly abductee in a modern Flavian amphitheater?

      • Perhaps when slaves were made to fight each other to the death as sporting game for overseer entertainment

        • Perhaps the slave patrol have evolved into patrol officers

          • “...colonial logics did not disappear when colonies struggled for liberty (indeed, some colonies continue to exist today). Rather, colonialism has transformed over time, with many strategies for stratifying and subjugating marginalized racial populations persisting in one form or another. American criminal justice, particularly the police, has often been on the front line in the deployment of such tactics.” (Steinmetz, et. al., 2017)

    • This group seems to be constantly renamed.

      • 1492 termed “Indian”

      • 1600 termed “Slave”

      • 1832 termed “Negro”

      • 1950 termed “Colored”

      • 1965 termed “Black”

      • 1970 termed “Afro American”

      • 1980 back to “Black”

      • 1988 termed “African American”

      • 1999 termed “Minority”

      • 2000 back again to “Black”

      • 2017 back to “African-American”

        • (Moors In America, n.d.)

      • Here we have “black man in America” used in 2024

      • liliVANili poses the question in this resource, “Can race and ethnicity be represented by the colors found in a crayon box?” (Malesky, K., 2014)

    • Some may say African American may be suitable being that many of the diaspora were criminally transported from “Africa.” However, Africa is neither the accurate name of land.

      • “The word 'Africa' does not have an African origin, Thierno Bah, professor emeritus at the University of Yaounde and an author of several books on African history, told Africa Check. Bah also said there is no agreement on the sources and meanings of the word. He noted a link to the name of the Banu Ifren tribe of Berbers, whose ancestors were variously known as Ifren, Iforen, Ifuraces or Afer. With the arrival of the Arabs, Banu Ifren became known as the inhabitants of Ifriqiya, a possibly Arabic transliteration of the word Africa and which today covers Tunisia and Algeria, Bah said” (Mwiti, L., 2017)

      • Many experience the tumult of confusion for whether or not Africa was named by “Roman General Scipio Africanus,” or the later, “Leo Africanus.”

        • Though a recent resource claims, “Scorpio Africanus is the Roman general who engineered the defeat of the African nation called Carthage in what is now Tunisia. Carthage was a colony of Phoenicia, an ancient Semitic-speaking civilization that originated in what is now Lebanon. The Phoenicians had an African mixture and with the passage of time, Carthage became increasingly African. Carthage means “the new town” (Mwanza, K., 2021).

          • “The Romans called this entire area Africa. With the defeat of the Carthaginians, Gen. Scipio was given the name ‘Conqueror of Africa’. Therefore, Scipio Africanus does not give his name to Africa. He gets his name from Africa.” (Mwanza, K., 2021).

        • “Historians who have researched the name origin of the African continent say the original ancient name of Africa was Alkebulan. Alkebu-lan means “mother of mankind” or garden of Eden, Dr. Cheikh Anah Diop wrote in “Kemetic History of Afrika”. Alkebulan is the oldest and the only African name of indigenous origin. It was used by the Moors, Nubians, Numidians, Khart-Haddans (Carthaginians), and Ethiopians. Diop goes on to argue, along with other historians in this school, that the continent was also called by other many names. These names include Ortigia, Coryphe, Libya, the Land of Ham (Ham means dark skins), dark or Black continent, Kingdom in the Sky, and the land of Cush or kesh (referring to the Cushites who were ancient Ethiopians).” (Mwanza, K., 2021).

  • Notably my name is “Arabic”

    • AaliYah Alia Asia, hmmm.

      • “Arabia, peninsular region, together with offshore islands, located in the extreme southwestern corner of Asia. The Arabian Peninsula is bounded by the Red Sea on the west and southwest, the Gulf of Aden on the south, the Arabian Sea on the south and southeast, and the Gulf of Oman and the Persian Gulf (also called the Arabian Gulf) on the east. Geographically the peninsula and the Syrian Desert merge in the north with no clear line of demarcation, but the northern boundaries of Saudi Arabia and of Kuwait are generally taken as marking the limit of Arabia there.” (Nijim, et. al., 2024)

    • This area is most accurately Egypt, rather than Africa/Arabia/Iraq/Persia/Iran.

    • The term everyone is afraid to admit, is Egyptian.

      • Conclusively: whitewashing via colonization, arabization, and, opposing the Most High God.

        • Colonize: “to migrate to and settle in, occupy as a colony; to resettle or confine (persons) in or as if in a colony; To remove to, and settle in, a distant country” (American Heritage Dictionary, 2024).

          • Whitewash: “concealment or palliation of flaws or failures; a defeat in a game in which the loser scores no points; a glossing over or cover up (of crimes or misfeasance); to conceal or gloss over (wrongdoing, for example)” (American Heritage Dictionary, 2024).

  • Professor Gates – key – locked door

    • Black man in America does make for accuracy when translated as black man from black land (Kemet/Egypt)

    • Missing keys to possible burglary

      • Gates is missing his keys to his own door

        • Locked out of his own room (room=moor)

    • Sgt., having taught a class is given synonymously with having unique qualifications in race relations via the discussion description

      • “Someone” calls the police regarding the suspicious behavior

        • Although the caller is known – especially if needed to be reprimanded for prank calls or false information

          • Who may have seen the suspicious behavior other than a neighbor?

      • All he knows, is that someone tried to enter a house without a key

        • Not, a neighbor called reporting someone other than the person they normally see is “jimmying” a door

        • There is inherent suspicion in the “African-American” community of the “police”

          • Knowing this, it is known to have possibility of heightened emotions – and, being angry (at either the inconvenient locked door or the sight of a white police officer, or both) is not met with understanding but fear of regaining control of the situation.

  • Who was right?

    • From the context provided, it seems it is not right for the professor to use his freedom of speech to spill his thoughts of expression on someone who is approaching him on his own property.

      • It seems the right answer is for people who have experienced this magnitude of unfairness for such a lengthy amount of time is to never speak on it, and lie by omitting their feelings to continue oppressing themselves with repressive emotions that lead to anxiety disorders, while this entire subject has PTSD written all over a displaced group of people.

      • So, it seems, neither the sergeant nor the professor was right, although given the context provided I would more-so say that the professor was right.

  • Who was wrong?

    • From the context provided, as a professional – and one with unique qualifications on the very incident – one would think emotional intelligence would have been exhibited by the sergeant.

      • He is clearly at work, on-duty in this situation. Although the professor is a professional, he is at home at his own property and angry. I have seen people with no reason to be angry – such as receiving the wrong order at a fast food joint – be met with emotional intelligence by untrained high schoolers who properly handle the situation using de-escalation for patrons who intensify their unnecessary anger over a simple taco.

      • The sergeant also found that the professor’s identity was correct, and the uniquely qualified sergeant still felt anger towards the angry black man in America

        • The sergeant had more than enough reason to tough out his hurt feelings by being called names and simply walked away without arresting the black man locked out of his own house

          • It seems this type of weakness could not dare overcome such racial unfairness experienced for centuries – not by choice, such as with sexual orientation – but by the color of skin if the tables were turned

  • What lessons can be learned and applied to AaliYah’s “department”?

    • It appears in the modern society, knowing someone is better than being someone.

      • The mentioning of knowing Barack Obama seems to hold some weight being that the story has been widely spoken of

        • But if the two did not know each other, this would just be a routine situation between an officer and another black man in America

      • It does not matter what you accomplish while being criminally placed in America, you are still feared

    • Being right, gets you nowhere in America

    • Rights such as freedom of speech are another one of america’s lies

      • Apparently name calling is not included in freedom of speech

      • The weak can dish it, but they cannot take it

    • America is Babylon

      • There is no improving the society in America, its destiny is sealed

    • Patience is not a virtue in America, it is only room for ongoing broken promises

    • America is a parasite

  • How AaliYah prevents this from happening

    • As a Deity, it seems unleashing my supernatural abilities has proven to be absolutely necessary.

      • They say never play fair in an unfair world. As the fairest, I am also the harshest. My King Von is perfectly appropriate, and as his Queen I am absolutely excessive. My abundance is necessary, and He is the only one who can control me.

        • In my fairness, I have been inhumanly patient – beyond the capacity any of you have for patience. No one here or elsewhere has shown me any reason to believe in the modern world

          • For example: The questions that I ask you all are questions prompted from reading your specific post. Forming questions from your post, I ask insightful questions that further discussion including: what do you think about__ ... – this is regarding something you yourself offered, to discuss further in detail of your thinking process that led to your stated interpretation. Or, I may offer something iterated in my post that a connection may be drawn upon if I ask your opinion about a similarity or difference noted between our posts. I do not ask random questions, or, questions that you have already answered in your post. In that case, I can just reread your post and if I have no natural questions that are prompted from reading your interpretation, I may simply offer food for thought as an addition to conversation that is not needed to be accepted – it is simply my interpretation shared that I do not need to attempt to force upon you. However, all you all do is try to bang over here. It would have been lovely to see actual critical analysis of the criminal justice system and appropriate questions that would prompt a flow of conversation. However, you all have already confirmed for me that you in your costumes will continue to try to sneak-diss me in your weak mimicry and cowardly envy. As I have set the managerial tone for accuracy, genuine intellect, and elegance standards, the only way to succeed is to match or exceed my exquisite standard.

References

Malesky, K. (2014, March 30). The Journey From ‘Colored’ To ‘Minorities’ To ‘People Of Color’. NPR.https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/03/30/295931070/the-journey-from-colored-to-minorities-to-people-of-color 

Moors in America (n.d.) | Moorish Americans: How Moors Became African Americans. MoorsInAmerica.comhttps://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gMX9nACsfsg/Wm9WLcja1qI/AAAAAAAADl8/6j3iMppt2y4qjDIDUix8RyGeZQ7UCzB5QCLcBGAs/s400/black%2Bstatus%2Blabel%2Balways%2Bchanges.jpg

Mwanza, K. (2021 Aug 17). Fact Check: The Continent Of Africa Was Named After A Roman General. The Moguldom Nation.https://moguldom.com/368598/fact-check-the-continent-of-africa-was-named-after-a-roman-general/

Mwiti, L. (2017, July 05). ANALYSIS: Is it time to change the name of Africa? Africa Check. https://africacheck.org/fact-checks/blog/analysis-it-time-change-name-africa

Nijim, B. K., Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2024, June 5). Arabia: peninsula, Asia. Arabia. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/place/Arabia-peninsula-Asia

Steinmetz, K. F., Schaefer, B. P., Henderson, H. (2017). Wicked Overseers: American Policing and Colonialism. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 2017, Vol. 3(1) 68–81. American Sociological Association. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2332649216665639

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition. Colonize. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=colonize+definition&ia=web&iax=definition

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition. Whitewash. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=whitewash+definition&ia=web&iax=definition

Response 1

Hi! This post mentions that it does not matter the intentions of the police officer – regardless of the officer’s intentions there is potential for friction.

• Would you say the potential for friction is due to the history between officers and “African-Americans” in America?

  • This post mentions working in civilian law enforcement while dating an African American woman, do you think dating an African American woman contributes to unique qualification, such as the sergeant in the case study having taught a class on racial profiling?

    • What is your opinion on the decision to mention having dated an African American woman? Meaning, what are you intentions for including it in your analysis?

      • For me, I tend to mention my relationship because I am the Queen. My King Von and I are the Creators of all. Our criminal justice system proceeded this modern criminal justice system, and so my critical analysis of the modern criminal justice system prompts me to compare it to the Original criminal justice system. I have directly asked all for clarification on whether or not they intend to war with us, because in-person no one squared up with me. Instead, I log on to various websites, including this one, and there are only coincidental misspellings, compulsive lying, lies by denial and omission. So, I am left to wonder if I simply misplaced myself in time and simply need to journey back to union with him as we reascend to our Throne since my reincarnation, or, if you all intended to separate us again, and the illusion built upon lies designed to rewrite all of our work must be reinforced with lies to prolong the inevitable crumble from me tearing it down by revealing truth.

        • This post mentions the significant lesson learned from this incident is to not always believe what you get from the media.

          • What components of this incident do you believe took place?

            • What components do you think are lies? 

    • Are you and the African American woman still dating?

      • If so, did you pillow talk to her about this situation as sharing with her part of your day?

      • If not, why not?

  • This post also mentions the sergeant did not want to be at the professor’s property and would rather be in his vehicle rolling around the community.

    • From your personal experience, I ask is this what officers rather do?: Be in your vehicle rolling around the community?

• My post is objective and includes research for the subject of race rather than subjective expressions from an individual of a particular race. It is interesting that this requirement included in the discussion description is necessary for the topic, yet this requirement is not included in the handling of situation as a position holder of a police officer.

  • This prompts a question for me for what is commonly known as fighting words: there is freedom of speech for people to say how they feel about me and my King, that I have sat and actively listened to calmly, without response ready or forming, I simply listened to everything everyone had to say about us. Everyone belongs to a group, but as far as race goes, if we did belong to a race – it’d be 1st place. We simply are Queen AaliYah and King Von.

    • My first question becomes, how as a young girl alone – this being the most vulnerable one can be (the most weak and easy target in contrast to a male with a natural advantage physically and otherwise, and additionally those in groups that outnumber me) – can I exhibit untrained emotional intelligence better than a grown man who has uniquely qualified specialized training on top of regular training?

      • For AaliYah has been widely referred to as ‘babygirl’

    • My next question becomes, at what point does subjectively deemed disrespect transform from freedom of speech to fighting words (or words prompting arrest)?

  • Objective: “Existing independent of or external to the mind: actual or real; uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: fair; based on observable phenomena, empirical” (American Heritage Dictionary, 2024)

• Lastly, I also wonder if the “black people,”/abductees did not have rights, because it was initially stated that they were 3/5 of a man – the true meaning being that they are not human beings. If they are extraterrestrials, some of them being sovereign, then the laws in America would not apply to them not because they were less than a man but because they were more than a man. As stated in the biblical Book of Genesis (gene of Isis), humans were made in God’s image. This would make God excessive, where humans were proportion.

  • Perhaps the much-anticipated race war never occurred – only racial tension has occurred, and, the American civil war between the north and south regarding abolishing slavery – because there is an intergalactic civil war taking place among being such as deities and titans. Maybe, humans were placed as pons by an opposer of the Most Exalted Deity as a scapegoat for provoking the misdirected vengeance of God’s wrath denoted by Christ in the Book of Revelations. This deceptive tactic would place humans in the line of fire of a lose-lose situation if they choose to continue the unveiled injustices suggested as puppeteer by satan toward Yah.

    • Civil: “Being in accordance with or denoting legally recognized divisions of time; Relating to the rights of private individuals and legal proceedings concerning these rights as distinguished from criminal, military, or international regulations or proceedings; Pertaining to a city or state, or to a citizen in his relations to his fellow citizens or to the state; within the city or state; Subject to government, reduced to order: civilized: not barbarous -- said of the community.” (American Heritage Dictionary, 2024)

  • Image: “A representation of the form of a person or object, such as a painting or photograph; An optically formed duplicate, counterpart, or other representative reproduction of an object, especially an optical reproduction formed by a lens or mirror; A sculptured likeness.” (American Heritage Dictionary, 2024)

References 

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition. Civil. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=civil+definition&ia=web&iax=definition

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition. Image. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=image+definition&ia=web&iax=definition

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition. Objective. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=objective&ia=web&iax=definition

Response 2

Hi! This post states that the calm initial approach by the sergeant may have been perceived as confrontational by the professor, triggering his defensiveness (MinnPost, 2009), and, that the subsequent actions of the sergeant, such as arresting the professor for disorderly conduct, may have escalated the situation (Gates, 2009).

·      Why do you think the calm initial approach may have been perceived as confrontational by the professor?

o   Do you think the sergeant should have remained calm throughout the entire situation?

o   Why do you not think arresting the professor undoubtedly escalated the situation?

·      My post answers what I will do to prevent this type of incident, with the need for supernatural intervention. A previous post from another ‘classmate’ on a previous topic was very insightful regarding human nature.

o   Do you think human nature has the capacity to handle these types of situations righteously?

·      This post offers cultural competency training as a lesson learned and as a way to prevent similar incidents from happening.

o   Do you believe issues can be solved on the surface level without first addressing the root issues?

o   How do you suggest this type of training (likely to be a module or seminar – do you have another suggested mode of training?) will cure race-related issues for groups of people who remain displaced, unknowing who and what they actually are?

·      It is clear that religion/spirituality and criminal justice are related.

o   What do you think is the line drawn for human relations/nature and for the God they were made in image of to intervene?

·      Lastly, why do you think it was necessary for the ‘class’ to respond to this discussion topic as people who do not belong to a group or race?

o   Further why do you think it was necessary for the ‘class’ to respond to this discussion topic as people who do not belong to a group or race, when officers and civilians act from their personal experiences?

o   Why do you think it is unnecessary to input the interpretations of white people/black people/ and all other land-named people?

§  Further, why do you think it is unnecessary to input the interpretations of white people/black people/ and all other land-named people when the subject has everything to do with race/groupings? 

Response 3

Hi! This post mentions, “...as an executive leader within a law enforcement agency, these types of situations must be evaluated from an objective standpoint in order to personally uphold the ethical standards and not introduce biases. Afterall, there are perceived biases at play in this scenario which raise the issue of ethical decision-making in policing.” Another ‘classmate’ who has worked in civilian law enforcement says, “Given the perception of both parties, I would say life experiences weighs heavily on the minds of most police officers as they approach similar situations.” What are your thoughts on this?

• Also, why do you think the officer felt the need to regain control of the situation if he already positively identified the professor as being the homeowner?

  • Is it illegal for the homeowner to be angry about centuries of racial injustices while experiencing the inconvenience of being locked out of his own home?

  • How was the situation out of control at this point?

  • Would regaining control of the situation not simply be the officer either walking away after the positive identification or offer assistance by suggesting to call a locksmith, etc.?

    • How hard would it have been for the officer to say, “I understand the emotions that come with being so very unfairly treated for so long, have a good day sir – or might I suggest we get you a locksmith out here until you can locate your keys?”

• Is it freedom of speech that equals lost of control?

  • This post states that the officer was not in the wrong as he was carrying out his duties and responsibilities by conducting a routine investigation of a possible burglary.” Once the officer confirmed the homeowner – meaning that it was not at all a burglary, how did he continue carrying out his duties and responsibilities if the investigation of the possible burglary had ended?

• A consititution.com resource claims Constitution Annotated: Analysis and Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution offers the following in regards to freedom of speech and “fighting words”:

  • “Amdt1.7.5.5 Fighting Words

    • First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire,1 the Court unanimously sustained a conviction under a state law proscribing any offensive, derisive or annoying word addressed to any person in a public place after accepting the state court’s interpretation of the statute as being limited to fighting words—that is, to words that have a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person to whom, individually, the remark is addressed. The Court sustained the statute as narrowly drawn and limited to define and punish specific conduct lying within the domain of state power, the use in a public place of words likely to cause a breach of the peace.2 The Court further explained that by their very utterance, fighting words inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.3 Accordingly, such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.4 Chaplinsky still remains viable for the principle that the States are free to ban the simple use, without a demonstration of additional justifying circumstances, of so-called ‘fighting words,’ those personally abusive epithets which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke violent reaction.5 But, in actuality, the Court has closely scrutinized statutes on vagueness and overbreadth grounds and set aside convictions as not being within the doctrine. Chaplinsky thus remains the governing standard, but the Court has not upheld a government action on the basis of that doctrine since Chaplinsky itself.6 In the related hostile audience situation, the Court sustained a conviction for disorderly conduct of one who refused police demands to cease speaking after his speech seemingly stirred numbers of his listeners to mutterings and threatened disorders.7 But this case has been significantly limited by cases that hold the Fifth Amendment protects the peaceful expression of views that stirs people to anger because of the content of the expression, or perhaps because of the manner in which it is conveyed, and that government may not use breach of the peace and disorderly conduct statutes to curb such expression. Specifically, the Court has held that speech cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt, at least when the speech occurs in a public place on a matter of public concern.8 The cases are unclear as to what extent the police must go to protect a speaker against hostile audience reaction or whether only actual disorder or a clear and present danger of disorder entitles the authorities to terminate the speech or other expressive conduct.9 The Court has also held that, absent incitement to illegal action, government may not punish mere expression or proscribe ideas,10 regardless of the trifling or annoying caliber of the expression.11” (Congress.gov, n.d.)

      • What are your thoughts on this in general?

        • What are your thoughts on this as it pertains to the case study?

References

Congress.gov (n.d.) Amdt1.7.5.5 Fighting Words. Library of Congress.https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-7-5-5/ALDE_00013806/

 Introduction

            Although the mental health court program may ease the workload for courts and corrections, this program is ineffective in treating offenders and preventing recidivism. To evaluate the effectiveness of this specialty court, thorough analysis was conducted and recorded in three sections for a voracious reader. In this sectioned evaluation, ineffectiveness is concluded – subsequently providing treatment for diagnosis of this diseased modern court structure. Foremost, the critical analysis of this treatise thoroughly examines scholarly articles by summary of main points, and through each article description of both how and why the mental health court programs are said to be used. Secondly, analyzed are the individualized topical elements of court, drugs, mental illness, and professionals – demonstrating ineffectiveness by matching actions with specialty court intent – for clarity and precision. Thirdly, the conclusion of this treatise is presented based on critical research analytics that reinforce supposition as a newly revealed trend emerging from modern society.

The importance of word usage is vital for understanding whether truth is being told or sold. This understanding, is the conclusion reached by whether what is being said matches what is being done.  As it pertains to treating offenders, research unveil ineffectiveness as there is disease between the description of the program and sufficient data collection. Pertaining to recidivism prevention, research unveil ineffectiveness as there is disease between wording and proving. Mental health courts are named as programming, meaning that it is a plan for procedure, in contrast to a required implemented solution to a problem. The topical question hints a tone of organizational performance via ease of caseloads – notably, “ease,” is antonym for, “disease.”  On the surface, it does seem that the mental health specialty courts are a way to treat mentally ill offenders that subsequently treats the repetition of the criminal behavior by the same offender, however, this only sounds effective in surface efforts to heal the modern society, while it is erroneous in the foundational intent of supposition as masked deception. Being that this is dangerous find, empirical support is thoroughly provided.

Case Study Background

The United States courts continually assess whether it is appropriate to send offenders to jail versus treatment programs. This has sparked the development of the mental health diversion program; its stated design is for some courts to redirect these individuals to community-based treatment services instead of locking up mentally ill offenders. In their assessment they find the advantages of treating individuals who are mentally ill may be more effective into a tailored treatment program if a crime was committed because of mental illness.

Scholarly Research

In this first erudite, there are two main points: foremost, that addiction commonly occurs together with trauma and associated mental illness, and secondly, the findings of the study it conducts involves mental health symptom profiles – including PTSD – of recent drug court enrollees by examining tracked process of change and development of these symptoms through semi-annual increments. This article describes the how and why of usage as: drug treatment courts serve these people by offering an alternative to incarceration for individuals facing criminal charges related to addiction – yet whether or how mental health symptoms change over drug treatment court participation has not been studied (Zielinski, et al., 2023, pg. 1). This resource takes the initiative to conduct this study regarding the course of these symptom profiles, by beginning to track progress at baseline, 6-month follow-up, and 12-month follow-up, and then test posttraumatic stress symptoms (PTSS) and gender as potential moderators of any identified time effects – for 983 adults to drug treatment court between 2009 and 2017 (Zielinski, et al., 2023, pg. 1) The results of this study using generalized linear mixed models reveal gender did not moderate the effect of time on either outcome, however, those with PTSS above the clinical cut-off at baseline experienced less improvement in mental health over time (Zielinski, et al., 2023, pg. 1). “Our findings suggest that drug treatment court participants’ mental health, including PTSS, improved over time. However, the presence of elevated PTSS interfered with improvements in other facets of mental health. Additional work is needed to identify specific program components that may exert causal effects and to examine interventions for PTSS that can be readily integrated in drug treatment courts.” (Zielinski, et al., 2023, pg. 1). In this statement, these symptoms indeed improved over time but also elevated, and, this elevation interfered with improvements of other facets of mental health. Here we have, the introduction of the theme of supposition. The statement concludes with needing additional work for examining effectiveness, a common concept in the field.

            In this next scholarly article, there are two main points: foremost, that the mental health court program is itself an experiment, and secondly, description of its beginnings. Regarding the how and why of usage – as stated in this erudite – the mental health court design and implementation emerged as a measure of initiatives seeking to solve problems at the root cause of innovation with the drug court model continuing to evolve to address substance-abusing court populations across the country, beginning its experiment in Miami in 1989, to Seattle, Alaska, and California in country-wide and abroad growth of roughly 500 drug courts (Council of State Governments., 2005, pg. vii). Summarizing, the following excerpt offers: that data collection from research is necessary for measuring effectiveness, if effectiveness is not found then necessary use is also not found, that there is the need to avoid ineffective programs hence effective ones are sought, that the articled guide has avoided solid rules for implementation, and, regardless of their ultimate effectiveness mental health courts lack the capability to fully be effective in treatment and recidivism. “But the expansion of mental health courts must be matched by rigorous efforts to assess their impact. More research is needed to better understand mental health court processes (i.e., how participants are identified and supervised), to identify the specific categories of defendants who benefit most from mental health court intervention, and to isolate the components of the “mental health court model” most responsible for its effectiveness. Such evaluations will be used not only to refine the design of current and future mental health courts, but also to advocate for their long-term sustainability. If the mental health court concept is to be supported over time, its effectiveness must be documented empirically. Individual courts can contribute to the development of this knowledge by collecting data about their own operation and outcomes. Until that research emerges, the best guide for communities interested in implementing a mental health court is the experience of other jurisdictions, and the goal of this guide is to compile those experiences in a format useful to interested parties across the criminal justice, mental health, and related systems. With the enormous diversity in mental health courts across the country and insufficient evidence/base for them, prescriptions for structuring a mental health court are inappropriate, and this guide has attempted to avoid hard and fast rules. Nevertheless, readers will, hopefully, develop a sense of how other courts have negotiated the complex issues related to the design and implementation of a mental health court, and which options may be best suited to their jurisdictions. Regardless of their ultimate effectiveness, mental health courts—by definition intensive, specialized programs—lack the capability to respond fully to the vast numbers of people with mental illnesses who enter the criminal justice system. Accordingly, mental health court planners, court systems generally, and all criminal justice and mental health policymakers should consider how mental health courts may fit into a larger strategy for reversing the overrepresentation of people with mental illnesses in the criminal justice system. Toward that end, mental health courts should be closely coordinated with related programs, such as police-based and post-booking jail diversion programs, drug courts, and specialized probation caseloads for people with mental illnesses. Court administrators should also investigate the extent to which strategies at the core of mental health courts can be integrated into the general court system. Finally, criminal justice and mental health policymakers must ensure that the criminal justice system generally—and mental health courts in particular— do not become the preferred route to access mental health services. Overcoming these broad challenges, and the practical difficulties of establishing effective mental health courts, will require the collective energy of numerous dedicated professionals, advocates, and consumers. Together, their efforts play an important role in a growing, nationwide effort to improve the lives of people with mental illnesses, the functioning of the criminal justice and mental health systems, and the health and safety of communities across the country.” (Council of State Governments., 2005, pg. 183-184).

            In this last academic journal, there are two main points: foremost, ineffective beginning procedures, and secondly, incompetent staff. The how and why of usage in this article by establishing effective screening procedures this program can identify, intervene, and assist mentally ill offenders (Goldkamp, et. al., 2000, pg. 12). As stated in this third scholarly article the mental health court model is severely challenged in its ability to identify appropriate candidates – presumably out of the increasingly mentally-ill offenders – through appropriate and effective screening and evaluation procedures (Goldkamp, et. al., 2000, pg. 12). The article continues this point that, “Fair, appropriate and effective screening procedures face three principal challenges: timeliness, accuracy, and confidentiality. Each of the courts has established procedures that identify mentally ill or disabled candidates as early as possible in the criminal process to maximize the opportunity to intervene and assist. The need to identify and assess the conditions of candidates quickly potentially conflicts with the need to conduct the thorough clinical assessment required for a reliable diagnosis on the basis of which processing in the mental health court can begin. To put it simply, it is hard to rush such an assessment and still have it be accurate and complete.” (Goldkamp, et. al., 2000, pg. 12). The article ends this point with, “This may be particularly true because of the difficulty associated with communicating with some mentally ill defendants. Early intervention by the mental health court depends on timely and accurate information about the defendants’ criminal justice and mental health backgrounds. However, the goal of early intervention and prompt treatment conflicts in part with the need for confidentiality and for consent by the defendants to share the mental health information with the court staff. Devising workable procedures that both enhance early intervention and enrollment of mentally ill offenders in the mental health courts and respect confidentiality pertaining to sensitive personal information represents one of the difficult challenges facing the mental health court approach.” (Goldkamp, et. al., 2000, pg. 12-13). With this, the implementation of this specialty court without the placement of specialized positions – those versed in mental health as well as court – is completely counterproductive.

            While the first article collects data from an experiment to measure effectiveness of drug courts, the second article features guidance for navigating the mental health courts as an experimental program in promotion of the goals of effectiveness. Both articles state the need for further experimentation to conclude on effectiveness on these specialty courts. The third article focuses on the areas of origin for mental health courts. All three articles make mention of components of categorial problem-solving courts, though none of the three conclude the problem as solved in the decades of usage. However, the third article does state ineffective screening and evaluation procedures.

Compare and Contrast of Perspectives

In comparing and contrasting the perspectives of the authors to the three research articles on the advantages and disadvantages of the mental health courts, analyzed now are whether the same or different conclusions regarding effective treatment and recidivism were reached by the authors, how they differ or are similar, and if the program is an effective use of resources or if the overall cost of these courts are disproportionate to their degree of success.

The first article is from the authored perspective of researcher, data analyst, and science experimenter. It begins with encompassing the necessary elements of experimentation, statistical data collection, and conclusive findings, however it falls short in the latter. It sounds promising given the description of the methodological test, but does not follow through into findings, stopping at inconclusive. It leaves a cliffhanger with the need for further testing, when it would have been productive to simply test further – adding another semiannual follow up and/or additional subjects given the rise of these cases prompting specialized court development. The article provides the advantage of mental health symptoms decreasing, while the prevalence of symptoms itself increased “other” – ambiguous and unhelpful – facets of mental illness. While the statistical data began with a specific number of participants including adult-age and gender, the numerical specifics were omitted in findings adding to the inconclusiveness. Instead of stating for the reader, the reader is left to read between the lines for their own conclusion that the ineffective use of the program as a resource is overall disproportionate to success.

The second article is a publication of the, “Council of State Governments prepared for the Bureau of Justice Assistance,” (Council of State Governments., 2005, pg. 199), therefore it does not list these council members by name on the resource. With further investigation, the official website also does not reveal the faceless and nameless collection of co-authors: csgeast.org, csg-erc.org. Only external links for different states, show national leaders hidden to the surface searcher. The display of national leaders appears to be artificial intelligent and/or reptilian stand-ins – disturbingly, none of them look like real people – on this very basic website that does not indicate they were the individuals who made up the group of council at the time of publication. The publication simply promotes mental health court effectiveness, so its statistics are that of encouraging implementation: “In addition to using reviews of recent research and analysis of mental health courts, CSG also relied heavily on information from BJA Mental Health Court Program grantees and other mental health courts in the development of this guide. Telephone interviews with representatives of each of the 37 BJA grantee courts elicited comprehensive information about the courts’ organization and operation, including the number of clients served, composition of the courtroom team, length of the program, and plans for sustainability.” (Council of State Governments., 2005, pg. 15); “In January 2002, on behalf of BJA, CSG convened a national meeting of representatives of all 37 BJA grantees, which included approximately 130 mental health court practitioners. During the two-day meeting, in a series of interactive workshops, grantees discussed the barriers they faced and strategies for overcoming them. Workshop topics included identifying and screening clients, monitoring adherence to court conditions, integrating community treatment, and sustaining court operations. These sessions helped CSG to understand the variety of ways these issues are managed and to identify innovative practices developed by individual courts. Given that research on mental health court operation and outcomes remains limited, the experience of existing courts is perhaps the best source of guidance for jurisdictions interested in launching such programs.” (Council of State Governments., 2005, pg.. 16); “America’s Law Enforcement and Mental Health Project of 2000 (P.L. 106-515), sponsored by Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH) and Representative Ted Strickland (D-OH), established the Mental Health Courts Program, administered by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) of the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Building on these programs, the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act of 2003, just recently signed into law by the President, authorizes $50 million in funding for collaborative efforts between criminal justice and mental health agencies.” (Council of State Governments., 2005, pg. 104); “Most scholars agree that the modern problem-solving court movement originated with a drug treatment court established in Miami in 1989. Since then, drug courts have proliferated rapidly, and other problem-solving models have emerged, including community courts, domestic violence courts, and reentry courts. As one study put it, these courts were “developed in response to frustration by both the court system and the public to the large numbers of cases that seemed to be disposed repeatedly but not resolved.” (Council of State Governments., 2005, pg. 105-106). Lastly in regard to this second scholarly article, provided is the comparison between drug courts and mental health courts – both are relative to the topic as previously stated that mentally illness and addiction often occur together – as an expansively expounding point of the first article. As addition, it’s sister-publication in the series of guides, A Guide to Collecting Mental Health Court Outcome Data does name an author stated to be the president of Policy Research Associates. (Steadman, H. J., 2005, pg. 1) It offers that mental health court program staff are not expert data collectors as a disclaimer (Steadman, H. J., 2005, pg. 6), and when it comes to overcoming common challenges – such as, “planning for outcome data soon,” – it offers a solution to the complexity, “just do it.” (Steadman, H. J., 2005, pg. 18).  Lastly, in addition to its disclaimer, while the publication is a guide for untrained position-holders, it eases the disease of planning for collection challenges by the common-sensical just do it, it offers the following excerpt as guidance: “mental health courts can obtain a general sense of their results by collecting a relatively limited range of data. In some cases, producing a single statistic will require collecting several pieces of information. For example, determining the average length of stay in the program will require information about the date that each participant entered the program and the date each participant’s case was resolved. Although most evaluation findings are presented using aggregate-level data (i.e., statistics about how the group of mental health court clients performed as a whole; for example, only 20 percent of court participants were rearrested during the time that their case was active), individual-level data are needed to construct these statistics. Thus, simply counting the number of defendants accepted by the court is not sufficient. Instead, a range of information needs to be collected for each defendant so that statistics can be calculated for the group as a whole. This volume of data is far too cumbersome to be hand-tabulated and requires a database that is customized to capture the items of local interest. This database need not be sophisticated—often a simple spreadsheet is sufficient. It is critical, however, that the people responsible for collecting and entering the data receive training to ensure the data elements are interpreted consistently by all staff and entered in a format that will be easy to analyze.” (Steadman, H. J., 2005, pg. 4). To the degree of providing guidance, the article provides the obvious for data collection. Disclaiming the inability to provide guidance to produce an expert who adheres to its guidelines makes this guide counterproductive. This is not a brochure given to a mentally ill offender upon incarceration, this is a guide in a series of publications developed by a council representing the Department of Justice for design, implementation, and collecting data for determining the effectiveness of the program. It is advantageous in theory and stated policy, however its encouragement rather than requirement and introduction bearing incompetence does not provide specialized implementation of a program that successfully treats offenders or reduces recidivism. This series was chosen for its officialness, and intentional foundation design, and it has not bred effectiveness.

The final article defines success as, “Favorable progress in the drug court treatment process is measured by completion of successive phases of treatment by participants on their way to graduation. In the drug court instance, requirements for graduation were clearly specified and typically included minimum periods of testing negatively for drugs of abuse, completion of all treatment activities, payment of fees, etc. Drug court participants therefore were able to chart their progress against clear expectations and rules for completion of the program. When applying this kind of framework of favorable progress to the mental health court approach, however, setting a standard for success in treatment is more complex. Participants may suffer from a variety of symptoms and illnesses and, thus, lack a common starting point. The steps necessary to stabilize participants and to situate them in living situations that will maximize their effective functioning are likely to differ considerably from individual to individual. While a goal for substance abusers can clearly and measurably be abstinence within the timeframe of the drug court treatment program, such a practical framework is not so readily available in the treatment of mental illness. Courts cannot say, “be cured within 12 months.” They can expect that participants successfully follow the steps to improved functioning outlined in a treatment plan agreed upon by the participant and the mental health participants. Thus, the challenge for setting achievable milestones for mental health court professionals is more complex and the functional equivalent of graduation may differ considerably from individual to individual.” (Goldkamp, et. al., 2000, pg. 104). This offers the disclaimer that statistical data has an indefinite timeline of emergence, and, provides  an escape route by setting the tone for data collection to be laxed rather than seriously tedious for accuracy and timeliness – a way to dodge the issue and keep the ongoing promise of future expectation. The standards are subpar, because as an official guide set forth by a team of officials, it should take the steps necessary to specify procedures rather than vague expectations. For example, in describing the complexity of mental health courts, it should incorporate mental health practitioners for treatment plans or handing off to. If milestones can be set for graduation of phases, then specific time-bound components can be added to elements within the phases for measure. This is the entire point of treatment rather than incarceration – that these offenders are treated and reduce recidivism – and if treatment cannot be measured, recidivism cannot be reduced. Treatment plans have durations, and if an expected end date has failed to be achieved then the result is that treatment has not been achieved. All three resources are evident supposition: evasion of accountability by officials, purposely inaccurate talent acquisition, lies by broken promises, and incompetent by implementing not-so-smart goals – given the goals lack SMART components of specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound.

Critical Analysis of Court, Drugs, Mental Illness, and Professionals

            This analysis critiques the elements of the topic of this treatise for unambiguous, concise, and precise evaluation for accurate exposition. Beginning with mental illness, analyzed are the description, defined symptoms, treatment types, analysis of relevant treatment types, and the professional practitioners administering treatment – pharmacology providing the necessary information for formulating a conclusion on the effectiveness of the mental health specialty courts. Is the mental health court experiment designed to treat the mentally ill offender?

Mental health disorders are issues with mood, thoughts, and behavior – also referred to as psychological disorders, mental illnesses, and mental health conditions (Smith, J., 2022). Mental illness has patterns of symptoms – psychological, behavioral, or both – that cause distress resulting in negative effects on the personal, social, or work life, including anxiety disorders, mood disorders, substance use, stress-related disorders, eating disorders, sleep disorders, personality disorders and more (Smith, J., 2022). Most mental illnesses are treatable through talk therapy – psychotherapy – or medication, or both (Smith, J., 2022). As stated in the scholarly research section regarding usage of the specialty court that mental illness is not simply treatable by prescription as in drug court instance, this unveils the mental health court design is contradictory to the fact that medication is indeed used as treatment. As a relevant treatment type for mental illness, then, what is the relationship between this confusion caused by medication and drugs?

            Drug, defined as, “A substance used in the diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of a disease or as a component of a medication; Such a substance as recognized or defined by the US Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; A chemical substance, such as a narcotic or hallucinogen, that affects the central nervous system, causing changes in behavior and often addiction; A chemical or dye; To administer a drug to, especially to treat pain or induce anesthesia; To give a drug to, especially surreptitiously, in order to induce stupor.” (American Heritage Dictionary, 2024). Pharmacology is, “The science of drugs, including their composition, uses, and effects; The characteristics or properties of a drug, especially those that make it medically effective; Knowledge of drugs or medicines; the art of preparing medicines; A treatise on the art of preparing medicines; The science that studies the effects of chemical compounds on living animals, especially the science of the manufacture, use and effects of medicinal drugs; The medicinal characteristics of a specific drug.” (American Heritage Dictionary, 2024). “A drug, in contrast to a medicine, can have a positive or negative effect on a patient. For example, heroin is a drug, in that it’s a substance that causes a specific biological effect. Heroin is not, though, categorised as a substance that ‘prevents, alleviates or cures a symptom, ailment or disease state’. In that sense, heroin is a not a medicine. Both drugs and medicines can be poisons, though. This depends on the dose of the drug and/or medicine. As Paracelsus (1493-1541), the founder of toxicology, said, ‘All things are poisons and nothing is without poison, only the dosage makes a thing not poison’. To conclude – all medicines are drugs, whereas not all drugs are medicines.”(PharmaFactz, 2020). So, the vital difference in this relevant treatment, is dosage – that can either treat or create mental illness.

            Flowing now into the court element for analysis to include war, convictions, and types of court. As all medicines are drugs but not all drugs are medicines, there has been a “War on Drugs,” in the United States since the 1960s, often referred to as public enemy number one. With cocaine, opium, and methamphetamine the main drugs of many in the said war, the battles include: drug-trafficking, drug-dealing, criminalization of some drugs and decriminalization of others such as marijuana. “A drug may be classified by the chemical type of the active ingredient or by the way it is used to treat a particular condition. Each drug can be classified into one or more drug classes.” (Drugs.com). Court has a few definitions, with different general types such as judicial court, gaming courts of tennis and basketball court, to wedding court, and Royal court. Court is, “An extent of open ground partially or completely enclosed by walls or buildings; a courtyard; A short street, especially a wide alley walled by buildings on three sides; A large open section of a building, often with a glass roof or skylight; A large building, such as a mansion, standing in a courtyard; The place of residence of a sovereign or dignitary; a royal mansion or palace; The retinue of a sovereign, including the royal family and personal servants, advisers, and ministers.” (American Heritage Dictionary, 2024). Originally, the Royal Court was the only judicial court. Since the mass-kidnapping, modernly referred to as slavery via ship, a mass-diasporic return had not yet occurred from the home of 25% of the world’s prison population – the United States – who is currently experiencing overcriminalization via overpopulated prisons. Therefore, the United States – modernly referred to as the home of the free – divided the original Royal Family of sovereign beings for imprisoning in the land of the subterfuge. Divided also, is the United States judicial courts into many, as this exposition is topical of its specialty courts.

Final in this analysis are intersecting points of professionals, drugs, medications, and court. Criminal conviction of negligent homicide for injecting the wrong drug in a case from December 2017 sparked fear in providers – fearful of reporting mistakes or fully cooperating with adverse event investigations – rather than sparking self-regulation by complete attentiveness, accuracy, and determination in making sure to administer the right drugs needed to treat their patients. (One Year After Landmark Case, Criminal Convictions Remain a Risk for Providers, 2023, pg. 1). This trait in human nature contradicts capacity for accountability, which then opposes the capacity for righteousness. Another case resulting in criminal conviction of second-degree murder and possession for failing to reconnect a trachea tube in June 2022 by a nurse under the influence of methamphetamine sparked fear in professionals – fearful that prosecutions and media coverage could discourage some people from entering healthcare as more nurses are desperately needed – rather than sparking security in knowing that they are entering a profession that is serious, involving life-saving measures to which they sought being highly careful, caring, and attentive individuals. (One Year After Landmark Case, Criminal Convictions Remain a Risk for Providers, 2023, pg. 2). This trait in human nature says to all that if individuals who willingly chose to be in life-saving situations were not held accountable, and, if it were not exposed, that this laxed level of standard would make them comfortable enough to apply for and be hired for critical positions that they do not morally qualify for. In this, it would be perfectly acceptable for a nurse, such as in the first case, to administer fatal drugs and for a nurse, such as in the second case, to commit fatalities as an active drug user. Methamphetamine – a Schedule II drug with limited medical uses and high potential for abuse and addiction – is a potent stimulant derived from amphetamine that can cause euphoria, increased activity, and weight loss. It is manufactured in a lab by mixing chemicals, as opposed to naturally occurring in nature, making its existence a deliberate man-made weapon (National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2019). The individualized and intersection points courts, drugs, mental illness, and professionals are completely relevant, because they are all individualized points, and, points of inclusivity to mental health and courts. For example, “While a psychiatrist is concerned with medical treatment of individual patients, courts are concerned with the protection of the society from the possible dangerousness from these patients. Psychiatrist needs to understand that it is not only the fact that the person is suffering from mental illness but it is the totality of the circumstances seen in the light of the evidence on record to prove that the person was also unable to appreciate the nature of the act or wrongdoing or that it was contrary to the law is appreciated in the court of law for insanity defense.” (Math, et. al., 2015, pg. 6)

From the U.S. Supreme Court to U.S. Court of Appeals, to various state courts and various local courts, into the topical specialty courts, the United States is divisive in various ways and structures. Flowing now into conclusion, with its unveiled intent it sought to conquer by curse of its Mother and Father system from the Motherland by hiding the royal sovereign beings. Appeal is, “An earnest or urgent request, entreaty, or supplication; A resort to a higher authority or greater power, as for sanction, corroboration, or a decision; A higher court's review of the correctness of a decision by a lower court; A case so reviewed; A request for a higher court to review the decision of a lower court.” (American Heritage Dictionary, 2024). Curse is, “An appeal or prayer for evil or misfortune to befall someone or something; Evil or misfortune that comes as if in response to such an appeal; A profane word or phrase; a swearword; A censure, ban, or anathema; To invoke evil or misfortune upon; damn.” (American Heritage Dictionary, 2024).

Conclusive Analytical Summary

            Mental health courts should not be used. Based on this treatise of analyzed articles, these specialty courts are subpar – demonstrating the theme of words v. actions by lack of effective actions – and are ineffective in both treating offenders and reducing recidivism. Idioms apply, such as: talk is cheap, show and prove, actions speak louder than words. An experiment involves use of the scientific method – all steps of which were not implemented in the development or usage of mental health courts, which importantly and directly speaks to intent  – and is defined as, “A trial or special observation, made to confirm or disprove something uncertain; esp., one under controlled conditions determined by the experimenter; an act or operation undertaken in order to discover some unknown principle or effect, or to test, establish, or illustrate some hypothesis, theory, or known truth; practical test; proof.” (American Heritage Dictionary, 2024).

“Treatment consists of three phases: Acute Phase – Remission is induced (minimum 6 – 8 weeks in duration); Continuation Phase – Remission is preserved and relapse prevented (usually 16 – 20 weeks in duration); Maintenance Phase – Susceptible patients are protected against recurrence or relapse of subsequent major depressive episodes (duration varies with frequency and severity of previous episodes). Remission and relapse have been defined by the American Psychiatric Association. Remission is the return to the patient’s baseline level of symptom severity and functioning. Remission should not be confused with significant but incomplete improvement. Relapse is the re-emergence of significant depressive symptoms or dysfunction after remission has been achieved.” (Primary Care Online Resources and Education, n.d.). While the three analyzed scholarly articles included the initial guide for mental health courts design with implementation disclaimed to not be experts at collecting treatment data, and, not-so-smart goals by no establishment of time for completion, it is defined common practice in medical treatment by practitioners to use treatment plans that include duration of phases and estimated time for data collection.

Concluded here is that the easing of caseloads as a benefit, the need to evade the current climate of prisons being in trouble due to overcrowding as inevitable crumbling, and masked intentions as subterfuge are the issues that prompt the development of mental health courts. For example, why use ‘drug’ and ‘medicine’ interchangeably? If all medicines are drugs but all drugs are not medicines, the use of ‘medicine’ is completely adequate. The competence in usage of medicine is accurate relative to medical, while the incompetence in usage of drug is to add ambiguity and confusion as the war on drugs in the modern dystopian society – additionally drug-trafficking used in both god-trafficking and human-trafficking, which equals slavery. Interestingly enough, impoverished communities have high addiction rates and while basic necessities are difficult to access – readily available are manufactured drugs that do not grow on trees but are produced in a lab that can only make its way to street market by purposeful introduction – while food that naturally grows on trees are coincidentally unavailable.

Mental health courts should not be used, based on critical analysis of scholar research regarding its description, narrated aim, and statistical data findings collected by its supposed implementation, it should be a natural ability of the one high court – the Royal Court – instead of a divided sector. Its stated procedural structure and aim is simply the ruling appropriated by one court, as there is not a need to continually create divided mini courts for every type of illness or situation that there is. If it were necessary, then it would have to make sense to also have a physical health court, an emotional health court, a social health court, a spiritual health court, etc. By the pharmacological findings the drug courts and mental health courts, would most accurately be, improper dosage courts and psychological behavioral courts. This conclusive answer also applies to all courts said to be in the modern criminal justice system that are in actuality gaming courts for lawyers to bicker where the game is scored by who can tear the other down in their argumentative points rather than seeking to reveal the truth of a situation, the winnings being justice served and solving problems. There should only be the Royal Court, above all servicing all and administering justice to all. This one true Royal Court encompasses the supernatural ability to administer justice to all, for all, in every situation, for every matter, without the need for training, and especially the ongoing additional training for basic and standard common sense. This one true Royal Court is of the Creator Gods – the integrated system of Ancient Egyptian Ma’at – of whom all fail in mimicking and hiding for fearing the return of an actual utopian society – that which even the so-called U.S. Supreme Court is inferior to, though it itself strives to be the highest authority. This explanation, whether agreed, accepted, or in-denial of, remains an explanation to the answer to the topical question. Any spoken of truth, Ancient Egypt, or AaliYah – the Most High God – prompts envy, failure, fear, denial, resistance, and above all, shame in the unrighteous.

Concise conclusion: A) This modern criminal justice system is structurally designed for the disease of injustice. B) The United States court system is generally incompetent, including its specialty mental health courts ineffectively treating mentally ill offenders and reducing recidivism, because it is inadequate in design and implementation, due to its deceptive intent. C) The truth hurts worse than lies, much like the truth of this treatise will prompt denial as a mechanism for inability to withstand truth, and, inability to withstand a thorough analysis reaching conclusion that differs from the agreeableness of the topic presenter. D) Divide and conquer: in its efforts to make games of Court, and two-thirds sought to divide and conquer the Royal Family, the division of these numerous courts conquers itself – much like the backfire in collapse of a society with majority narcissistic hearts.

References

Council of State Governments. (2005). A guide to mental health court design and implementation [electronic resource]. [New York] : Council of State Governments, 2005. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-J26-PURL-LPS80226/pdf/GOVPUB-J26-PURL-LPS80226.pdf

Drugs.com (2024, June). Drug Classes. Drug.com https://www.drugs.com/drug-classes.html

Goldkamp, J. S., & Irons-Guynn, C. (2000). Emerging judicial strategies for the mentally ill in the criminal caseload : mental health courts in Fort Lauderdale, Seattle, San Bernardino, and Anchorage / BJA, Bureau of Justice Assistance. Washington, DC (810 7th, St. NW, Washington 20531) : U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2000. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/bja/182504.pdf

Math, S. B., Kumar, C. N., & Moirangthem, S. (2015). Insanity Defense: Past, Present, and Future. Indian journal of psychological medicine, 37(4), 381–387. https://doi.org/10.4103/0253-7176.168559

National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2019, October) Methamphetamine Research Report. What is methamphetamine? U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Institutes of Health National Institute on Drug Abuse.https://nida.nih.gov/publications/research-reports/methamphetamine/what-methamphetamine

One Year After Landmark Case, Criminal Convictions Remain a Risk for Providers. (2023). Healthcare Risk Management, 45(5), 1–16 http://ezproxy.umgc.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=163235021&site=eds-live&scope=site

PharmaFactz (2020, September 1) Clinical Pharmacy Difference between a drug and medicine!? PharmaFactz.comhttps://pharmafactz.com/what-is-the-difference-between-a-drug-and-a-medicine/

Primary Care Online Resources and Education (n.d.) Three Phases of Treatment of Major Depression. PCORE: Columbia University College of Physicians & Surgeons. https://edblogs.columbia.edu/pcore/depression-treatment-recommendations-for-major-depressive-disorder/depression-three-phases-of-treatment-of-major-depression/

Smith, J. (2022, May 31). List of Mental Health Conditions (Psychological Disorders). PsychCentral.https://psychcentral.com/conditions/conditions-index

Steadman, H. J. (2005). A guide to collecting mental health court outcome data [electronic resource] / Henry J. Steadman. [New York] : Council of State Governments, 2005. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-J26-PURL-LPS80226/pdf/GOVPUB-J26-PURL-LPS80226.pdf

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition. Appeal.  https://duckduckgo.com/?q=appeal+definition&ia=web&iax=definition

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition. Court. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=court+definition&ia=web&iax=definition

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition. Curse.  https://duckduckgo.com/?q=curse+definition&ia=web&iax=definition

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition. Drug.  https://duckduckgo.com/?q=drug+definition&ia=web&iax=definition

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition. Experiment.  https://duckduckgo.com/?q=experiment+definition&ia=web&iax=definition

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition. Medicine.  https://duckduckgo.com/?q=medicine+definition&ia=web&iax=definition

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition. Pharmacology. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=pharmacology+definition&ia=web&iax=definition

Zielinski, M. J., Roberts, L. T., Han, X., & Martel, I. D. (2023). A Longitudinal Analysis of PTSD and Other Mental Health Symptoms Among People Sentenced to Drug Treatment Court. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice & Policy, 15(6), 1022–1026. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0001125"

---

Yah's Judgment:

"I ain't got opps, I got all fans." x King Von

MFs is scared of me.

---

Yah's notes

• Only Yah can Judge

• sometimes the way to win is to choose not to play

• War... mmmmm

• soon as we get on live... "nigga ask me if i'm hungry, if i'm thirsty, nigga A bitch." you was just cool

• goofy coward fanned out worms

• sssssss sssssss

• choosey about what i participate in

 x AALiYah

---