Annotated bibliography

  1. WOGEN, JENIFER, and MARIA TERESA RESTREPO. “Human Rights, Stigma, and Substance Use.” Health and Human Rights, vol. 22, no. 1, 2020, pp. 51–60. JSTOR, 

This source speaks on how the primary purpose of political, civil, socioeconomic, and cultural rights is to protect the dignity of all human beings. The author writes about how good mental health and well-being are defined by the “social, psychosocial, economic, and physical environment that enables individuals and populations to live a life of dignity, with full enjoyment of their rights and pursuit of their potential. Stigmatization, discrimination, and negative stereotypes are barriers to mental health and well-being. Individuals with mental health problems, including those with drug dependence, suffer stigmatization, which goes directly against their rights and dignity. This paper discusses the implications of stigma for a human-rights-based approach to improving mental health among those with drug dependence. It explores the public health burden of stigma related to substance misuse, including stigma in the context of treatment and health care. It also discusses the role of policy initiatives–including decriminalization-in addressing stigma related to substance misuse. The audience for this work would be those searching for possible solutions/ people looking to better understand those who battle mental health, substance abuse, or both. This is relevant to my topic because solutions to the disparity of health care is exactly what im looking for, and the fact that she notes how its especially persistent among the small minority means that those are the groups who are being discriminated against, now not only in the legal system but also in the medical field. This source is pretty strong, the only weakness i would say is that some of her sources are a decade + old. 

  1. YATES, ROBERT. “Should We Abolish the Insanity Defence? The AMA Says Yes—and Prescribes Its Own Legal Medicine.” Compleat Lawyer, vol. 1, no. 2, 1984, pp. 12–55. JSTOR, 

This source explains why the the defense fails to achieve its stated objective of promoting humanitarian treatment of the mentally ill; in practice, it does not shield impaired offenders from punishment to any great degree, nor does it serve to maximize opportunities for necessary therapy. The author also writes on how the defense forces juries to confront issues of moral responsibility and free will in a fundamentally irrational manner. It requires both juries and psychiatrists to make these judgments under the guise of resolving medical issues.The defense, he says, invites continuing expansion, courts abuse, and produces capricious results. It provokes cynicism on the part of the public and contributes to the erosion of public confidence in the fairness, rationality, and efficiency of the criminal justice system. The audience for this would be anyone still on the fence of wether or not the defense is just and if it should be replaced or kept. This is relevant to my topic because it thoroughly explains the unfairness and wrongness that comes with the plea. 

  1. Hayes, Robert, et al. “Mental Health and the Law: An Introduction.” International Journal of Mental Health, vol. 22, no. 4, 1993, pp. 3–21. JSTOR,

This sources addresses issues that the legal system fails to address. Things like how the legal system’s response  may be seen to reinforce biases and prejudices rather than assist in shaping more positive and less discriminatory attitudes toward vulnerable groups in the community. The author speaks on how people with mental illnesses who are thought likely to be dangerous to others or harmful to themselves are more likely to be detained and less likely to be released into normal life than those who are more dangerous but do not have a history of mental illness. This discrimination is apparent within the context of both the civil and criminal commitment systems of most societies. He also writes about laws on antidiscrimination and the protection of human rights, which address issues of social justice for women, minority groups, indigenous people, and people with disabilities. And how the way in which the legal system approaches this is important because the administrative law process provides mechanisms for imposing standards, determining breaches of regulations, and ensuring the formulation and implementation of appropriate policy goals in relation to general and mental health facilities, residential environments such as boarding houses, hostels, and group homes, and service providers in general. The audience for this source would be those in search for answers as to why there continues to be discrimination in a society thats so advanced. Who would’ve thought that it was because of our own government?? Anyone who wants to better understand the struggles of people with mental health or minorities should read this. This is relevant to my topic because it dissects the issues in our laws and the little things that need to be fixed but are overlooked by everyone. 

  1. Wexler, David B. “Putting Mental Health into Mental Health Law: Therapeutic Jurisprudence.” Law and Human Behavior, vol. 16, no. 1, 1992, pp. 27–38. JSTOR, 

This article criticizes the traditional doctrinal approach to mental health law and compares the traditional approach with a new one known as therapeutic jurisprudence. Therapeutic jurisprudence views the law itself as a potential therapeutic agent. Examples are given of how legal rules, procedures, and the roles of legal actors may produce therapeutic or anti therapeutic results and of how the law may improve outcomes without sacrificing the interests of justice.

The author explains how and why mental health law developed outside of a interdisciplinary tradition and claims that mental health law’s focus has resulted in having largely lost its academic appeal. But the article further claims that the time is ripe to create a truly interdisciplinary field of therapeutic jurisprudence with a creative/analytical approach very different from the analogical reasoning that characterizes traditional mental health law. The audience for this source would be anyone interested in the making of laws and the importance of the way its written. This is relevant to my topic because it proposes a possible solution to the issue of the wording and interpretation of the defense. 

  1. MEARS, DANIEL P., et al. “RECIDIVISM AND TIME SERVED IN PRISON.” The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), vol. 106, no. 1, 2016, pp. 83–124. JSTOR, 

This source is about how people justify lengthier stays in prison because of the belief that spending more time in prison reduces recidivism. Studies, however, have provided evidence that suggest that the effect of time served may be minimal.the author brings up studies that have examined time spans of more than one to two years, or investigated the potential for the relationship between recidivism and time served to be curvilinear( outcome changes as the variables change). This author analyzed data on 90,423 inmates released from Florida prisons, she found three patterns: greater time served initially increases recidivism but then, after approximately one year, decreases it, and, after approximately two years, exerts no effect; estimation of the effects associated with durations of more than five years are uncertain. The results point to how the time served and can actually very little affect incarceration and recidivism. The audience for this text should be those who really believe that higher sentences ensure safety or that the criminals “wont do it again” because of a high sentence… it does not matter. This is relevant to my topic because it shows how because people aren’t receiving the proper help, even high sentences cant be a quick fix to not ensuring everyone gets proper treatment. This helped steer me into a direction where tougher sentences simply couldn’t be the solution, only proper help and aid can help these people.