Reconsidering the Criminalization Debate

• Author: Brent Teasdale,Ellen Ballard
• Published date: 01 February 2016
• Date: 01 February 2016
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0887403414561255
• Subject Matter: Articles

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2016, Vol. 27(1) 22 –45

© 2014 SAGE Publications

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0887403414561255

cjp.sagepub.com

Article

Reconsidering the

Criminalization Debate: An

Examination of the Predictors

of Arrest Among People With

Major Mental Disorders

Ellen Ballard1 and Brent Teasdale1

Abstract

It is widely accepted that individuals with major mental disorders are arrested at

significantly higher rates when compared with non-disordered individuals. However,

theoretical consensus regarding the cause of the arrest disparity still eludes

researchers today. Two prevailing perspectives have dominated the debate—

criminalization and criminality. Criminalization proponents argue the arrest disparity

results from structural forces in society that have increasingly caused persons with

mental disorders to come into contact with the justice system. Criminality proponents

argue that the source of the disparity is the increased criminal behavior of persons

with mental disorders. This study tests competing hypotheses drawn from these

two perspectives. We analyze data from a sample of individuals recently released

from psychiatric hospitals and a comparison sample of individuals from the same

communities. Results of multivariate logistic regression models predicting arrest

provide support for both perspectives. Implications of this research and suggestions

for future research are discussed.

Keywords

mental disorder, arrest, criminalization

1Georgia State University, Atlanta, USA

Corresponding Author:

Ellen Ballard, Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Georgia State University, P.O. Box 4018,

Atlanta, GA 30302-4018, USA.

Email: eballard4@gsu.edu

561255CJPXXX10.1177/0887403414561255Criminal Justice Policy ReviewBallard and Teasdale

research-article2014

Ballard and Teasdale 23

Introduction

As Abramson (1972) coined the phrase “the criminalization of mental illness,” evi-

dence that individuals with major mental disorders are disproportionately involved in

the criminal justice system has amassed (Hiday & Burns, 2010; Lurigio, 2012).

Researchers have estimated that individuals with major mental disorders are 10% to

20% more likely to be arrested than non-disordered individuals (Lurigio, 2012;

Markowitz, 2011; Skeem, Manchak, & Peterson, 2011). This susceptibility toward

arrest is reflected in the jail and prison populations. According to Lamb, Weinberger,

and Gross (2004), individuals with major mental disorders comprise approximately

10% to 15% of the inmate population in state and federal jails and prisons—a preva-

lence rate Markowitz (2011) estimates to be 4 times greater than the prevalence of

mental disorder in the general population. This disparate representation of individuals

with major mental disorders in the criminal justice system is both disturbing and prob-

lematic. Once incarcerated, compared with non-disordered individuals, individuals

with major mental disorders experience longer jail stays (McPherson, 2008; Solomon

& Draine, 1995), are more likely to be victimized by other inmates and staff (Kondo,

2000), are more likely to violate institutional rules (Ditton, 1999; Torrey, Kennard,

Eslinger, Lamb, & Pavle, 2010), and have higher rates of recidivism (Teplin, Abram,

& McClelland, 1997).

Two theoretical perspectives have been offered to explain the disproportionate

criminal justice involvement of individuals with major mental disorders—the crim-

inalization hypothesis and the criminality thesis (Hiday & Burns, 2010). The crimi-

nalization perspective asserts, holding all else constant, individuals with major

mental disorders are more likely to be arrested than non-disordered individuals

(Lamb & Weinberger, 1998; Lamb, Weinberger, & DeCuir, 2002; Markowitz, 2011,

2006; Teplin, 1990). Researchers favoring criminalization explanations contend,

once the general risk factors for arrest common among all offenders are controlled,

extralegal factors unique to individuals with major mental disorders further increase

their risk of arrest (Hiday & Burns, 2010; Hirschfield, Maschi, White, Traub, &

Loeber, 2006). As applied to risk factors, the term extralegal refers to system, clini-

cal, police officer level, and situational factors that extend beyond the authority of

the law. As such, the ability of any of these factors to predict arrest in samples of

individuals with major mental disorders is evidence this population has been

criminalized.

Despite strong empirical evidence for the criminalization perspective, researchers

favoring the criminality perspective have issued a number of theoretical challenges to

the long-standing criminalization hypothesis. The criminality perspective maintains that

individuals with major mental disorders are disproportionately drawn into the criminal

justice system because they have a greater propensity for violence and criminal behavior,

possess a greater number of general risk factors for arrest, and are more likely to behave

disrespectfully and defiantly during encounters with police (Engel & Silver, 2001; Fisher

et al., 2011; Hiday & Burns, 2010; Hirschfield et al., 2006; Junginger, Claypoole, Laygo,

& Crisanti, 2006; Novak & Engel, 2005; Skeem et al., 2011).