“John Doe,” an inveterate thief and shoplifter, was arrested and charged with terroristic threats after threatening the life of a grocery store employee who confronted him about stealing soda and chips at a local store. The police were called after Doe lunged at the store employee, screaming that he had a knife and was going to kill him. The employee was terrified, shaking, and weeping uncontrollably as he explained to police his fear that Doe was going to take his life. A search incident to Doe’s arrest yielded only the soda and chips—no knife was found.
Based on his lengthy criminal history, Doe faced up to thirty- nine months in prison if convicted of terroristic threats. However, in addition to a long-term pattern of criminal behavior, Doe also suffered from years of an unmanaged mental illness: bipolar disorder. Given this information, does justice demand a thirty-nine- month prison sentence? Would the public best be protected and served by sending Doe to prison? Or would the public be better served if Doe were allowed to participate in mental health court, a specialty court designed to provide services and supervision to individuals with qualifying mental illnesses?
Prosecutors routinely address similar questions faced by the prosecution team in the Doe case. They grapple with their primary mission of securing justice, while balancing the need for an appropriate consequence that protects public safety against the needs of a defendant suffering mental illness and the stabilization that can be provided through participation in mental health court. Using mental health court experiences from Ramsey County, Minnesota, this article will address the prosecutor’s role in seeking justice, provide considerations for admitting offenders into the specialty court, and discuss the challenges prosecutors face when dealing with non-compliant offenders.