Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35261481›Full record

ArticleCrime, law, and social change2022

Measuring judiciarization of people with mental illnesses.

Oxana Mikhaylova, Julia Naumova

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Crime, law, and social change, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Oxana MikhaylovaCenter for the Modern Childhood Research, HSE University, Moscow, Russia.ORCID 0000-0002-0236-6992
Julia NaumovaHSE University, Moscow, Russia.ORCID 0000-0003-2770-8853

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The judiciarization of the psychiatric subject is a two-sided process. It could anti-discriminate people with mental illnesses but, at the same time, it could potentially provoke pathologization of mental illnesses. Current methodologies proposed to measure this important and complicated process for people with mental illnesses do not allow analysis on multiple levels (the macro, meso, and micro). In this article, to fill this gap we propose a methodological strategy that helps to investigate judiciarization of people with mental illnesses on multiple levels at once. This approach is based on critical discourse analysis of legal documents and court decisions that feature people with the poor mental health. Namely, we suggest how to measure the level or degree of judiciarization, its geographical evenness, actors in the legal process, its dimensions (the law branches of its occurrence), and linguistic content. We applied this methodology in examining 1,243 legal documents and 327,311 court decisions that were issued by agents of the Russian law system. The research findings show that judiciarization levels in Russia have been rising over the years, moving away from stigmatizing those with mental illnesses and towards anti-discrimination. Our paper could be of interest to socio-legal researchers and social policy practitioners.

Indexed as

critical discourse analysisjudiciarizationlegal discourse on mental healthRussia

Identifiers

PMID35261481
PMCPMC8890681

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.