Mental illness is pervasive in American prisons and jails. Individuals who, prior to deinstitutionalization efforts in the 1960s, would have been committed to state hospitals are now unable to access the appropriate services in the community. Consequently, individuals with mental illness are excessively entangled in the criminal justice system and frequently incarcerated. Conversely, many individuals without a recorded history of mental illness develop such conditions while in correctional facilities.<\/p>\n
Despite the enormous number of detainees and inmates with mental illness, U.S. prisons and jails lag behind in the provision of adequate mental health treatment: staffing levels are low, screenings are subpar, and treatment plans are neglected. Ill-equipped to address the needs of this population, correctional facilities frequently further isolate inmates with mental illness in solitary confinement\u2014a response that often exacerbates the person\u2019s condition and prolongs their stay. Litigation involving inmates with mental illness has heavily relied on Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment claims, often arguing \u201cdeliberate indifference\u201d to incarcerated or detained individuals\u2019 needs. This cause of action places a high burden on prisoner-plaintiffs to demonstrate prison officials\u2019 subjective knowledge and a conscious disregard of inmates\u2019 needs. Courts give deference to correctional officers\u2019 decisions about when and how to respond to inmates with mental illness. Litigants also rely on the Americans with Disabilities Act, which poses a similar subjective-knowledge burden.<\/p>\n
This Note attempts to introduce how the Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring<\/em> decision can be used as an alternative to traditional \u201cdeliberate indifference\u201d claims. It focuses on some of the advantages of Olmstead<\/em> litigation, both in terms of burdens of proof and possible long-term policy goals. Given the movement towards community-integration of people with disabilities, it is important that we consider how the principles of integration and non-isolation apply even in the context of incarceration.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n