Table of Contents
Human services practice is common in both judicial and mental health facilities in different countries of the world. The use of such practices has been widely accepted over a long time. It has also proved successful to correct a person using practical exercises. The goals of both mental health and criminal justice setups may vary because of different scenarios of presentation of their clients. However, the major missions of the processes and the application of human service practices should give positive results in the end. This essay focuses on the differences and similarities of human services practices in mental health setting and the criminal justice setting as an essential understanding.
Differences of human services practices in mental health and judicial setting
Firstly, mental health practices are voluntary, while judicially human practices are involuntary. Participants in human practices usually have the choice of taking or dropping an exercise. This is because mental disturbance in mental health facilities is unwarranted (Moxley & Finch, 2003). Clients in a mental health human practice program require training to comprehend the significance of an activity. The assignment to perform a task is, however, voluntary. In contrast, judicial setting uses forceful approach with clients to undertake a given task. In normal circumstances, the case of the perpetrator of a crime deserves a corrective task (Neukrug, 2007). A prisoner, for example, lacks a chance to choose exercise they want to undertake. This is because loyalty and submission are paramount to criminal, human services.
-
0
Preparing Orders
-
0
Active Writers
-
0%
Positive Feedback
-
0
Support Agents
Secondly, mental health human practices are confidential as opposed to the mandatory disclosure of judicial settings. Since practices for mental health are usually voluntary and based on personal decisions, there is no need to make it public. Different people may opt for mental health therapy depending on the lifestyle’s situations. A normal person in the eyes of the community may even go for health practices and thus the need for confidentiality. In contrast, the judicial human practices are part of judgment on a charge the person is given. Therefore, it is mandatory for the public to know the verdict a client receives. This is why the human service practices in judicial facilities remain disclosed.
Similarities
Supervision
Both the mental health and judicial setting human practices require high levels of supervision. In the context of mental health, human practices implementation helps patients learn some concepts both in personal and social life. Diversion from the course is likely to occur during the time of service. Therefore, patients need nurturing in a way that enables appreciation and understanding whatever is undertaken. Experience is the best way to learn. For example, caring is a belief that people with mental health disturbance best learn through practices aimed at showing them care (Neukrug, 2007). Likewise, judicial correction facilities ensure maximum supervision of client’s needs to develop loyalty to the authority. Prisons always remain at the eyes of police because some may be tempted to escape.
Results-oriented
All human service practices give positive results. The expectation of virtually all human services is to have socially acceptable and beneficial clients. Mental health is important for people to carry out daily activities. The personalities and character of clients in any human services is changed. Judicial facilities try as much as possible to correct the mindset of prisoners or convicts. The evaluation of a client in a judicial setting is often possibly successful through human service practices. Thus, the authority either continues with charges or releases the criminal with the acquired changes. Most juvenile courts handle cases of children who may have committed a crime without any intention. Such cases deserve trivial penalties of having to do services to the community. Although some human services are not satisfactorily successful in changing clients, the skills or virtues they learn are very instrumental in their lives.
Role of Human Services Practices in Pre-Trial Diversion
Human services practices provide an alternative way to judicial processes. Arguably, offenders instead become meaningful to the state through a cost-effective program. Most courts have many cases to handle. Disposition of offenders to human services practices thus reduces pressure to the judges. Human services also reduce overcrowding in jails and prisons since offenders usually undertake their practices elsewhere apart from confines but under supervision. Some of the activities done in the services program are economically beneficial too. This way the government creates revenue. The employees would have otherwise done the expensive tasks performed by offenders in pre-trial diversion. The community also benefits from human services of persons under pre-trial (Raeder, 2000).
To reduce the rate of future re-arrest of offenders in the pre-trial diversion, a lot of effort goes into supervision and treatment. A prosecutor can decide that a person gets mental health treatment if it promises to be effective. Depending on the crime, human service practices in mental health may be necessary. Those offences done under mental disturbance may warrant advice from mental professionals who will recommend on human services practices. In other cases, the anxiety on the pending case of may motivate offender to undertake treatment. Mental health is essentially significant in ensuring that those offenders who go to conviction are in a position to make sound and correct decisions.
Conclusion
Human services practices in mental health setting and judicial setting are highly recommended because of the positive results they give. There are differences between mental health and judicial practices in voluntarism and non-voluntarism of the clients respectively. However, both practices involve crucial supervision and intent of providing positive results. The use of human services practices in pre-trial diversion is imperative to the correction of offenders and efficiency of a judicial system.