By Joseph H. Obegi
Correctional mental health clinicians are sometimes asked to assess disciplinary responsibility, that is, to ascertain whether an inmate is culpable for violating prison rules. This assessment of disciplinary responsibility is akin to insanity determinations in criminal proceedings. In this article, I review the moral, legal, and practical aspects of disciplinary responsibility. I use California’s test of responsibility for prison misconduct, which is similar to the Durham rule, to illustrate some of the dilemmas involved in creating and implementing a test of disciplinary responsibility
When inmates with mental illness violate prison rules, correctional systems must determine when to hold them accountable. The solution that many systems in the United States have adopted, primarily in response to judicial intervention, is to incorporate the input of mental health professionals into the disciplinary process. This clinical input can give the hearing official three important pieces of information1: whether the inmate with mental illness has the capacity to participate meaningfully in the disciplinary hearing; whether or to what extent the inmate is culpable for the alleged misconduct; and, if the inmate is found guilty, what kinds of punishment may be inappropriate because they increase the risk of decompensation. In this article, I am concerned primarily with the second type of input, the assessment of disciplinary responsibility. I examine the moral, legal, and expert views of disciplinary responsibility as well as review research on prison infractions. To illustrate some of the challenges involved in addressing disciplinary responsibility (such as crafting an appropriate test, identifying eligible inmates, and resolving professional dilemmas), I draw on the approach taken by California’s prisons.
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, Vol. 52, Issue 4, 7p.
