Exploring Stigmatization and Stigma Management in Mental Health Court: Assessing Modified Labeling Theory in a New Context

Drawing on Link and colleagues' modified labeling theory, this article examines whether the stigma management strategies defendants anticipate using after mental health court exit are associated with their reported experiences during court. Using survey data from 34 mental health court graduate...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Sociological forum (Randolph, N.J.) N.J.), 2014-09, Vol.29 (3), p.720-735
Main Authors: Ray, Bradley, Dollar, Cindy Brooks
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Coping
Courts
Criminal justice
Criminals
Defendants
Health surveys
Justice
Labeling
Labelling
Management
Mental Health
mental health court
Mental illness
modified labeling theory
Procedural justice
Shame
Social stigma
Sociological analysis
specialty courts
Stigma
Stigmatization
Strategies
Survey data
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Drawing on Link and colleagues' modified labeling theory, this article examines whether the stigma management strategies defendants anticipate using after mental health court exit are associated with their reported experiences during court. Using survey data from 34 mental health court graduates, we find that respondents generally perceive the mental health court as procedurally just, did not experience stigmatizing shame, and anticipate using the inclusionary coping strategy of education over the exclusionary strategies of secrecy and withdrawal. Moreover, findings reveal that the anticipated use of stigma management strategies is associated with mental health court experiences in that procedural justice is associated with inclusionary coping strategies, while stigmatizing shame is associated with exclusionary coping strategies. We conclude by encouraging researchers to further explore the role of stigmatization and shame in specialty court contexts and to continue investigating these defendant perceptions of these courts' process.
ISSN:0884-8971
1573-7861
DOI:10.1111/socf.12111