The Government Quackjob Shuffle

Introduction:  Crazy People Making Crazy People

Federal and state law enforcers have a strange contingency plan when their investigations and prosecutions start to fail.  First, there needs to be a discussion about the secondary operations that are performed by the above-mentioned law enforcers toward accused criminal offenders/defendants.  That is, there is an imagery that is developed that depicts accused offenders as deranged-mentally ill individuals who need judicial impositions of treatment or incarceration that, in turn, allow law enforcers some form of victory (Appelbaum, 2017; Clements & Ciccone, 1984; Drogin, Commons, Gutheil, Meyer, & Norris, 2012; Rappeport, 1985).  In many cases, the law enforcers will prearrange a government quack to fulfill the desires that are wanted, and these procedures are undergone without any regard for constitutional rights, other laws the prohibit false evaluations, or medical oaths that have been taken that require medical specialists to properly dispense opinions and diagnoses toward the people who they speak with (Appelbaum, 2017; Clements & Ciccone, 1984; Drogin et al., 2012; Rappeport, 1985). 

Once this behavior is counteracted or shown in its reality, the law enforcers – especially prosecutors – will engage in what is called the “government quack-job shuffle” by this author.  This hokey pokey behavior by law enforcers includes speaking to multiple quacks who are not only willing to cater to the demands of government attorneys, but will also organize a script that will make the desired imagery of the prosecutor or other law enforcers appear viable (Appelbaum, 2017; Clements & Ciccone, 1984; Kocsis & Palermo, 2016).  Because of this, law enforcers are able to generate a list of quacks that they can turn to when their feathers are ruffled by accused offenders/defendants (Appelbaum, 2017; Clements & Ciccone, 1984; Kocsis & Palermo, 2016).  Of this, the following section will discuss the large host of government quacks that have been used by law enforcers and the frail judicial oversight that does not eliminate the ridiculous and biased infiltrations of justice.  Starting with the federal system’s quacks, followed by the many alleged credible doctors in the various state criminal justice systems, there will be an exposé of how these law enforcers and so-called professionals (quack-jobs) have participated in a process that has destroyed fair and impartial legal hearings, as well as annihilated constitutional rights during the course of investigations (Appelbaum, 2017; Clements & Ciccone, 1984; Drogin et al., 2012; Rappeport, 1985).

The Federal Criminal Justice System’s Corrupt Law Enforcers and Quackjobs.  Hard Nuts to Crack!

            

            The federal criminal justice system has been infused with faulty exhibitions of mental illness for many years now (Appelbaum, 2017; Clements & Ciccone, 1984; Drogin et al., 2012; Freckelton, 2012; Rappeport, 1985).  The burst of industrialized medicine and mass incarceration are surely reasons for this onset of the use of government-based quack-jobs and their dispositions (Heiner, 2016; Rothwax, 1996; Walker, 2011).  The changes in the laws that came about in the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 benefited federal law enforcers and gave them larger budgets to investigate criminal activities (Heiner, 2016; Rothwax, 1996; Walker, 2011).  Moreover, it also gave federal law enforcers the resources to solidify their criminal inquiries when they were caught violating constitutional rights and losing their cases in a court of law (Heiner, 2016; Kessler, 2002; Murrie & Boccaccini, 2015; Richman, 2003; Rothwax, 1996; Walker, 2011).  Contingency plans were manufactured that allowed for backup when this was the circumstance.  That is, federal law enforcers began initiating internal systems that gave themselves the benefit of the doubt, and these internal systems included the hiring of many professionals in the psychology and psychiatry field (Kessler, 2002; Murrie & Boccaccini, 2015; Richman, 2003).  Mental health practitioners, essentially, became law enforcers and were told to work side-by-side with their colleagues so that convictions were secured and resources were not wasted during investigations and prosecutions (Kessler, 2002; Murrie & Boccaccini, 2015; Richman, 2003).  This can be seen with the massive use of criminal profilers, behavioral analysis units that directly work in federal law enforcement agencies, snarky behaviors by law enforcers when this behavior is identified, and the establishment of specialists who work with federal courts and correctional facilities (Kessler, 2002; Murrie & Boccaccini, 2015; Richman, 2003).  Many of the aforementioned people have been deemed as experts in their field by the criminal justice system’s practitioners without any external insight or oversight by other professionals and civilians (Kessler, 2002; Murrie & Boccaccini, 2015; Richman, 2003).  Thus, there is a massive mental health scheme in the federal criminal justice system that has been unregulated for many years and has grown into an enormous faction that works to simply arrest, convict, and warehouse people who are targeted by federal law enforcers (Kessler, 2002; Murrie & Boccaccini, 2015; Richman, 2003). 

            The private sector has also been infiltrated with a law enforcement perspective on weaponizing the mental healthcare system in the United States (Appelbaum, 2017; Clements & Ciccone, 1984; Kessler, 2002; Murrie & Boccaccini, 2015; Richman, 2003; Shapiro, 2005; Walker, 2011).  Such as, federal prosecutors and judges have relied on private services of forensic psychologists and psychiatrists when defense is put toward the biases that exist with federal employees testifying or making “professional” opinions toward defendants or other courses of action that has brought them about (Appelbaum, 2017; Clements & Ciccone, 1984; Heiner, 2016; Kessler, 2002; Murrie & Boccaccini, 2015; Richman, 2003; Shapiro, 2005; Walker, 2011).  This is an example of how far wayward the federal law enforcers have gone to validate their investments into criminal investigations and criminal court procedures (Kessler, 2002; Richman, 2003; Shapiro, 2005).  More specifically, since the scrutiny about federal mental health practitioners who analyze and testify for the government exists, the federal law enforcers had to penetrate the private sector so that they could confirm their government-based endeavors that are involved with criminal offender evaluations and analyses.  This can be noticed with the capitalism that is associated with alleged non-government employee experts who are summoned to court to give their professional opinion about criminal defendants (Appelbaum, 2017; Clements & Ciccone, 1984; Heiner, 2016; Kessler, 2002; Murrie & Boccaccini, 2015; Richman, 2003; Shapiro, 2005; Walker, 2011).  In other words, the monetization of "expert" testimony and other professional incentives have produced a win-win for federal law enforcers unless defense attorneys are able to offer better benefits – such as more money – for testimony that is in their favor (Appelbaum, 2017; Clements & Ciccone, 1984; Heiner, 2016; Kessler, 2002; Murrie & Boccaccini, 2015; Richman, 2003; Shapiro, 2005; Walker, 2011).  Capitalism, via tax payer money for the most part, has created a mental health system that works for the best interests of federal law enforcement in other words (Appelbaum, 2017; Clements & Ciccone, 1984; Heiner, 2016; Kessler, 2002; Murrie & Boccaccini, 2015; Richman, 2003; Shapiro, 2005; Walker, 2011).  Money, and weaponized mental health practitioners, have shaped years of federal case law and miscarriages of justice without much inquiry into the practices by lawmakers and civilians, and there does not seem to any changes being discussed or initiated.  

Fuck it!  State-Based Quacks and the Misuse of Mental Health for Public Relations Schemas

            

             State criminal justice systems have weaponized psychiatrists and forensic psychologists in a similar way that the federal law enforcers have (Richman, 2003; Shapiro, 2005; Walker, 2011).  So, rather than a repetitive lecture, this section will focus on the misuse of mental health in the plethora of diversion courts, judicial referrals, and other programs that have been allegedly designed to help offenders and society in general.  Starting with diversion courts, mental health specialists have sold themselves to the ideas of justices wanting to be viewed as jolly-kind hearted persons who do not throw away people who can be helped (Balenko, 1998; Burns & Peyrot, 2010; Cooper, 2012; Polakowski, Hartley, & Bates, 2008; Nolan, 2001; Walker, 2011).  The problem is that many of the mental healthcare practitioners have disregarded many of the practices that entail proper treatment for the benefit of the judges who preside in these deviations from conventional court procedures (Balenko, 1998; Burns & Peyrot, 2010; Cooper, 2012; Polakowski et al., 2008; Nolan, 2001; Walker, 2011).  Explaining more, mental health is supposed to be a positive therapeutic practice that does not induce stress or further mental health issues, and the courts have ascertained processes that do the exact opposite of this when they are fully examined.  Arresting people and implementing them into specialty courts includes the threat of sanctions and possible return to the traditional criminal court system and, in turn, delivers an anguish upon the offenders involved in these systems via the mental health practitioners who are suggested to be there to help them (Balenko, 1998; Burns & Peyrot, 2010; Cooper, 2012; Polakowski et al., 2008; Nolan, 2001; Walker, 2011).  A strikingly perverse and chaotic approach to assistance, that is. 

   

Configuring definitions of mental health therapy has been delivered from the benches and mental health organizations who are associated with these courts, and the results are often conformity from offenders that eventually leads to disdain toward the legal system and external mental health agencies who are not involved with the criminal justice system (Balenko, 1998; Burns & Peyrot, 2010; Cooper, 2012; Polakowski et al., 2008; Nolan, 2001; Walker, 2011).  Once more, this is a contrasting agenda when the actual purposes of mental health therapy are understood.  Case in point, diversion courts have promulgated exterior views on mental health treatment in an egregious manner and they do not seem to counteract any of their poor applications of treatment because of the aforementioned public relations efforts and refusals to admit to wrongdoings that occur in these types of courts (Balenko, 1998; Burns & Peyrot, 2010; Cooper, 2012; Polakowski et al., 2008; Nolan, 2001; Walker, 2011).  Individuals who may need assistance may never acquire it because of the poor performances that are delivered in diversion courts, that is (Balenko, 1998; Burns & Peyrot, 2010; Cooper, 2012; Polakowski et al., 2008; Nolan, 2001; Walker, 2011). 

Judicial referrals and other programs that have been designed to help individuals have many of the same problems that have been described above.  There is a unique problem that is apparent that is not mentioned above, though.  That is, judicial referrals and treatment in other programs tend to be operating on a “lost cause” philosophy and people who actually need assistance are forced to participate in unregulated or improperly structured programs that are generalized (Balenko, 1998; Burns & Peyrot, 2010; Cooper, 2012; Polakowski et al., 2008; Nolan, 2001; Walker, 2011).  Meaning that these referrals and other treatment programs mostly have the same agenda for all its participants and the success that is suggested to be the purposes in these organizations is dismal as well (Balenko, 1998; Burns & Peyrot, 2010; Cooper, 2012; Polakowski et al., 2008; Nolan, 2001; Walker, 2011).  Thus, the state criminal justice systems can be deemed as responsible for the failure rates that contribute to individuals’ recidivism and lack of beneficial services that is thought to allow for individual and societal prosperity in these additional treatment agendas.  Many of these referrals to programs and other public agencies are operated by underfunded budgets and include programs that are not based on research that shows results that allow for the above-mentioned individual or societal success (Balenko, 1998; Burns & Peyrot, 2010; Cooper, 2012; Polakowski et al., 2008; Nolan, 2001; Walker, 2011).  Essentially, conjecture and haphazard agendas are being relied on, and many people – including many juveniles – are thrown to the wayside via the state criminal justice professionals without much care or compassion toward the well-being of the participants or other citizens in society (Balenko, 1998; Burns & Peyrot, 2010; Cooper, 2012; Polakowski et al., 2008; Nolan, 2001; Walker, 2011).

Conclusion:  What to Do and Is There Anything to Do?

           

             How do we solve this gigantic dilemma in our criminal justice system?  The answer is a two-part response.  First, laws and better policies need to be created so that individuals are not expendable to the powers of the persons who operate the criminal justice system.  Second, the many callous and negligent professionals who work in the criminal justice system need to be removed.  This can only be done through citizen empowerment and calls for proper justice.  Compassionate discourses can  only be undergone if the people who are responsible for implementing them are compassionate and kind-hearted.  Our criminal justice system is full of professionals who have little or no remorse for their poor behaviors and, in turn, view the system as a channel to benefit themselves personally and professionally.  Better hiring practices, coupled with better policies, would transition the criminal justice system into a modal that allows for positive growth for individuals who can actually be helped.  This can be done without casting a cloud-nine mentality for all persons who become involved in the criminal justice system.  However, and again, it can only be done through better policies and practitioners who are willing to actually initiate a paradigm that allows for positivity rather than punitive outlooks toward offenders and mental health recourse. 

            With this being stated, mental health organizations and practitioners need better access to information that is reliable and not based on guess-work.  Moreover, capitalistic ventures need to be eliminated from the mental health and criminal justice systems if there is going to be a seeking of positive endeavors that come from mental healthcare professionals and the legal system.  Allowing law enforcers to weaponize healthcare is an atrocious activity that needs to be ceased.  Government institutions need to be reconfigured so that they represent the ideas and promises that they are required to uphold and protect.  Currently, our criminal justice system and mental health system is intertwined and includes a prerogative that is based on psychopathy and capitalistic-based agendas.  Until this is acknowledged and changed, there will not be much positive actions that come about during or after legal settings. 

References

Appelbaum, P. S.  (2017).  Forensic experts, indigent defendants, and the Constitution.

            Psychiatric Services, 69(1), 2-4. 

Balenko, S.  (1998).  Research on drug courts:  A critical review.  National Drug Court

            Institute Review, 1(1), 1-42. 

Burns, S. L., & Peyrot, M.  (2010).  New approaches to social problems treatment. 

            United Kingdom:  Emerald. 

Clements, C. D., & Ciccone, J. R.  (1984).  Ethics and expert witnesses:  The troubled role

            of psychiatrists in court.  The Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the

Law, 12, 127-136. 

Cooper, C.  (2012).  Failure in the context of substance user interventions:  Drug treatment

courts.  Substance Use and Misuse, 47(13-14), 1463-1645.    

Drogin, E. Y., Commons, M. L., Gutheil, T. G., Meyer, D. J., & Norris, D. M.  (2012). 

            “Certainty” and expert mental health opinions in legal proceedings. 

            International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 35(5-6), 348-353. 

Freckelton, I.  (2012).  Expert evidence by mental health professionals:  The communication

challenge posed by evidence about autism spectrum disorder, brain injuries, and

Huntington's disease.  International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 35(5-6), 372-

379. 

Heiner, B.  (2016).  The procedural entrapment of mass incarceration:  Prosecution, race, and the

unfinished project of American abolition.  Philosophy and Social Criticism, 42(6),

594-631.    

Kessler, R.  (2002).  The bureau:  The secret history of the FBI.  New York:  St. Martin’s Press.

Kocsis, R. N., & Palermo, G. B.  (2016).  Criminal profiling as expert witness evidence:  The

implications of the profiler validity research.  International Journal of Law and

Psychiatry, 49(A), 55-65. 

Murrie, D. C., & Boccaccini, M. T.  (2015).  Adversarial allegiance among expert witnesses.

            Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 11(1), 37-55. 

Nolan, J.  (2001).  Reinventing justice:  The American drug court movement.  Princeton, NJ:

            Princeton University Press.

Polakowski, M., Hartley, R. E., & Bates, L.  (2008).  Treating the tough cases in juvenile drug

court:  Individual and organizational practices leading to success or failure.  Criminal

Justice Review, 33(3), 379-404.    

Rappeport, J. R.  (1985).  Reasonable medical certainty.  The Bulletin of the American Academy

of Psychiatry and the Law, 13, 5-15. 

Richman, D.  (2003).  Prosecutors and their agents, agents and their prosecutors.  Columbia

            Law Review, 103(4), 749-832.      

Rothwax, H. J.  (1996).  Guilty:  The collapse of the criminal justice system.  New York:

            Random House.   

Shapiro, S. P.  (2005).  Agency theory.  Annual Review of Sociology, 31(1), 263-284.  

Walker, S.  (2011).  Sense and non-sense about crime, drugs, and communities (7^th ed.).

            Belmont, CA:  Wadsworth.