The author wishes to thank Robert Emerson, Jim Holstein, John Heritage, and the late Melvin Pollner for their feedback on this article. This research was supported by the National Science Foundation Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Award and the American Sociological Association's Minority Fellowship Program.
Maybe He's Depressed: Mental Illness as a Mitigating Factor for Drug Offender Accountability
Version of Record online: 29 JUL 2009
© 2009 American Bar Foundation
Law & Social Inquiry
Volume 34, Issue 3, pages 569–602, Summer 2009
How to Cite
Paik, L. (2009), Maybe He's Depressed: Mental Illness as a Mitigating Factor for Drug Offender Accountability. Law & Social Inquiry, 34: 569–602. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-4469.2009.01158.x
- Issue online: 29 JUL 2009
- Version of Record online: 29 JUL 2009
Given the often perplexing relationship between mental illness and substance abuse among offenders, this article looks at how a juvenile drug court staff's presumptions of a youth's mental illness affect its decision-making process. Based on thirteen months of ethnographic fieldwork at a Southern California juvenile drug court, this article uses Manzo and Travers's “law in action” approach to analyze how the staff readjusts its application of normal remedies (a concept developed by Robert Emerson) designed to respond to a youth's noncompliance when it suspects mental illness may be influencing the youth's actions. In doing so, it highlights how court staff's considerations of youth mental disorders arise out of its everyday work practices. Furthermore, the article discusses how staff negotiations around a youth's mental illness create tensions for the juvenile drug court's accountability-based model of therapeutic jurisprudence, because assessments of mental illness tend to mitigate responsibility for a youth's behavior.