UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Restorative justice and mental illness : combating the "spider syndrome" Dwornik, Ania 2014

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


24-ubc_2014_spring_dwornik_ania.pdf [ 471.31kB ]
JSON: 24-1.0072145.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0072145-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0072145-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0072145-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0072145-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0072145-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0072145-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? Restorative	 ?Justice	 ?and	 ?Mental	 ?Illness:	 ?Combating	 ?the	 ??Spider	 ?Syndrome?	 ?	 ?by	 ?Ania	 ?Dwornik	 ?	 ?A	 ?THESIS	 ?SUBMITTED	 ?IN	 ?PARTIAL	 ?FULFILLMENT	 ?OF	 ?THE	 ?REQUIREMENTS	 ?FOR	 ?THE	 ?DEGREE	 ?OF	 ?MASTER	 ?OF	 ?SOCIAL	 ?WORK	 ?in	 ?The	 ?Faculty	 ?of	 ?Graduate	 ?and	 ?Postdoctoral	 ?Studies	 ?(Social	 ?Work)	 ?THE	 ?UNIVERSITY	 ?OF	 ?BRITISH	 ?COLUMBIA	 ?(Vancouver)	 ?January	 ?2014	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? ?	 ?Ania	 ?Dwornik,	 ?2014	 ?	 ? ii	 ?Abstract	 ?	 ? This	 ?study	 ?explores	 ?the	 ?experiences	 ?and	 ?perspectives	 ?of	 ?three	 ?restorative	 ?justice	 ?(RJ)	 ?practitioners	 ?who	 ?processed	 ?cases	 ?involving	 ?service	 ?users	 ?with	 ?serious	 ?and	 ?persistent	 ?mental	 ?illness.	 ?	 ?Participants	 ?were	 ?recruited	 ?in	 ?the	 ?United	 ?Kingdom	 ?with	 ?the	 ?help	 ?of	 ?restorative	 ?justice	 ?contacts	 ?in	 ?London,	 ?England.	 ?	 ?The	 ?three	 ?practitioners	 ?who	 ?came	 ?forward	 ?took	 ?part	 ?in	 ?one	 ?semi-??structured	 ?interview	 ?that	 ?lasted	 ?approximately	 ?one	 ?hour.	 ?	 ?A	 ?descriptive	 ?framework	 ?was	 ?used	 ?and	 ?emerging	 ?themes	 ?were	 ?coded.	 ?	 ?Research	 ?findings	 ?show	 ?that	 ?personal	 ?contact	 ?along	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?education	 ?appeared	 ?to	 ?increase	 ?participants?	 ?willingness	 ?to	 ?process	 ?RJ	 ?cases	 ?with	 ?service	 ?users	 ?who	 ?have	 ?serious	 ?and	 ?persistent	 ?mental	 ?illness,	 ?due	 ?to	 ?a	 ?subsequent	 ?reduction	 ?in	 ?stigmatizing	 ?thoughts	 ?and	 ?behaviours.	 ?	 ?The	 ?latter	 ?are	 ?components	 ?of	 ?what	 ?one	 ?of	 ?the	 ?participants	 ?referred	 ?to	 ?as	 ?the	 ??Spider	 ?Syndrome?:	 ?fears	 ?and	 ?misconceptions	 ?that	 ?occur	 ?due	 ?to	 ?a	 ?lack	 ?of	 ?knowledge	 ?and	 ?understanding.	 ?	 ?This,	 ?along	 ?with	 ?participants?	 ?own	 ?recommendations,	 ?suggests	 ?that	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?training	 ?which	 ?focuses	 ?specifically	 ?on	 ?skills	 ?and	 ?raising	 ?awareness,	 ?in	 ?combination	 ?with	 ?increased	 ?exposure	 ?to	 ?individuals	 ?who	 ?have	 ?serious	 ?mental	 ?illness,	 ?could	 ?be	 ?an	 ?important	 ?contributor	 ?to	 ?enhancing	 ?practitioner	 ?skill	 ?and	 ?increasing	 ?the	 ?use	 ?of	 ?RJ	 ?with	 ?such	 ?service	 ?users.	 ?	 ?	 ?Findings	 ?also	 ?suggest	 ?that	 ?restorative	 ?justice	 ?can	 ?be	 ?used	 ?as	 ?a	 ?stigma-??reducing	 ?tool,	 ?both	 ?at	 ?the	 ?practitioner	 ?and	 ?service	 ?user	 ?level.	 ?	 ?These	 ?insights	 ?may	 ?hold	 ?important	 ?implications	 ?for	 ?social	 ?work,	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?and	 ?development	 ?of	 ?practice	 ?in	 ?the	 ?field	 ?of	 ?restorative	 ?justice.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? iii	 ?Preface	 ?This	 ?thesis	 ?is	 ?an	 ?original	 ?intellectual	 ?product	 ?of	 ?the	 ?author,	 ?Ania	 ?Dwornik.	 ?	 ?The	 ?fieldwork	 ?presented	 ?in	 ?the	 ?findings	 ?and	 ?conclusion	 ?was	 ?collected	 ?and	 ?analyzed	 ?by	 ?myself,	 ?the	 ?author,	 ?with	 ?the	 ?approval	 ?of	 ?the	 ?UBC	 ?Behavioural	 ?Research	 ?Ethics	 ?Board	 ?(#	 ?H12-??03327).	 ?	 ?I	 ?conducted	 ?this	 ?work	 ?independently,	 ?under	 ?the	 ?supervision	 ?of	 ?my	 ?faculty	 ?supervisor	 ?and	 ?Principal	 ?Investigator,	 ?Dr.	 ?Frank	 ?Tester,	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?the	 ?other	 ?members	 ?of	 ?my	 ?advisory	 ?committee:	 ?Dr.	 ?Stephanie	 ?Bryson	 ?and	 ?Dr.	 ?Simon	 ?Davis.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? iv	 ?Table	 ?of	 ?Contents	 ?Abstract......................................................................................................................................................................................... ii	 ?Preface.......................................................................................................................................................................................... iii	 ?Table	 ?of	 ?Contents ................................................................................................................................................................... iv	 ?Acknowledgements................................................................................................................................................................ v	 ?Dedication .................................................................................................................................................................................. vi	 ?Reflexivity .................................................................................................................................................................................. vi	 ?Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1	 ?Literature	 ?review .................................................................................................................................................................... 3	 ?What	 ?is	 ?Restorative	 ?Justice? ............................................................................................................................................ 3	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?Restorative	 ?Justice	 ?in	 ?the	 ?UK ........................................................................................................................................... 5	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?What	 ?is	 ?Mental	 ?Illness? ...................................................................................................................................................... 8	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?Psychosocial	 ?Rehabilitation	 ?and	 ?Recovery .............................................................................................................28	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?Stigma......................................................................................................................................................................................31	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?Restorative	 ?Justice	 ?and	 ?Social	 ?Work ..........................................................................................................................36	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?Restorative	 ?Justice	 ?and	 ?Mental	 ?Health ......................................................................................................................36	 ? 	 ?Methods ......................................................................................................................................................................................38	 ?Findings ......................................................................................................................................................................................42	 ? 	 ?Prevalence	 ?of	 ?Mental	 ?Illness	 ?in	 ?RJ ...............................................................................................................................42	 ?Competence ..........................................................................................................................................................................46	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?Safety	 ?&	 ?Risk.........................................................................................................................................................................57	 ?Stigma	 ?and	 ?the	 ?Normalization	 ?of	 ?Mental	 ?Illness ...................................................................................................61	 ?Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................................................68	 ?References.................................................................................................................................................................................80	 ?	 ?	 ? v	 ?	 ? Acknowledgements	 ?	 ?I	 ?would	 ?like	 ?to	 ?acknowledge	 ?the	 ?members	 ?of	 ?my	 ?advisory	 ?committee:	 ?Frank	 ?Tester,	 ?Stephanie	 ?Bryson	 ?and	 ?Simon	 ?Davis.	 ?	 ?Thank	 ?you	 ?for	 ?agreeing	 ?to	 ?take	 ?my	 ?project	 ?on,	 ?and	 ?for	 ?always	 ?making	 ?yourselves	 ?available	 ?despite	 ?busy	 ?schedules	 ?and	 ?massive	 ?workloads.	 ?	 ?Thank	 ?you	 ?also	 ?to	 ?my	 ?friends	 ?and	 ?colleagues	 ?at	 ?UBC	 ?and	 ?in	 ?London,	 ?with	 ?special	 ?thanks	 ?to	 ?my	 ??thesis	 ?crew?.	 ?	 ?Without	 ?your	 ?ears	 ?to	 ?vent	 ?and	 ?debrief	 ?to	 ?I	 ?would	 ?not	 ?have	 ?made	 ?it.	 ?	 ?Thank	 ?you	 ?also	 ?to	 ?the	 ?members	 ?and	 ?friends	 ?of	 ?Stepping	 ?Stone	 ?Community	 ?Service	 ?Society,	 ?who	 ?inspired	 ?me	 ?to	 ?do	 ?this	 ?work	 ?in	 ?the	 ?first	 ?place.	 ?	 ?Last	 ?but	 ?not	 ?least,	 ?to	 ?Mom	 ?and	 ?Chris.	 ?Thanks	 ?for	 ?putting	 ?up	 ?with	 ?my	 ?stress	 ?over	 ?the	 ?past	 ?two	 ?years.	 ?	 ?	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? vi	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? To	 ?my	 ?mom,	 ?who	 ?has	 ?been	 ?my	 ?rock,	 ?and	 ?without	 ?whose	 ?moral,	 ?financial,	 ?and	 ?emotional	 ?support	 ?I	 ?would	 ?never	 ?have	 ?been	 ?able	 ?to	 ?pursue	 ?any	 ?of	 ?my	 ?post-?secondary	 ?endeavors.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? vii	 ?Reflexivity	 ?I	 ?wanted	 ?to	 ?take	 ?a	 ?few	 ?moments	 ?to	 ?discuss	 ?my	 ?reasoning	 ?behind	 ?this	 ?choice	 ?of	 ?topic.	 ?	 ?While	 ?tracing	 ?back	 ?my	 ?motivation	 ?for	 ?this	 ?research	 ?I	 ?came	 ?to	 ?learn	 ?that	 ?it	 ?has	 ?many	 ?branches.	 ?	 ?During	 ?my	 ?Foundation	 ?year	 ?I	 ?did	 ?my	 ?practicum	 ?placement	 ?on	 ?the	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?team	 ?of	 ?the	 ?Correctional	 ?Service	 ?of	 ?Canada	 ?(CSC).	 ?	 ?At	 ?the	 ?time,	 ?I	 ?was	 ?also	 ?involved	 ?in	 ?restorative	 ?justice	 ?work	 ?in	 ?Vancouver.	 ?	 ?While	 ?at	 ?the	 ?CSC,	 ?I	 ?found	 ?that	 ?I	 ?had	 ?the	 ?desire	 ?to	 ?merge	 ?these	 ?two	 ?areas	 ?of	 ?my	 ?interest.	 ?	 ?	 ?I	 ?went	 ?into	 ?my	 ?placement	 ?one	 ?day	 ?and	 ?began	 ?to	 ?inquire	 ?into	 ?restorative	 ?justice	 ?programming	 ?within	 ?the	 ?CSC,	 ?with	 ?a	 ?special	 ?focus	 ?on	 ?offenders	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness.	 ?	 ?Since	 ?this	 ?was	 ?the	 ?population	 ?that	 ?I	 ?had	 ?been	 ?working	 ?with	 ?it	 ?seemed	 ?a	 ?natural	 ?line	 ?of	 ?inquiry	 ?to	 ?pursue.	 ?	 ?I	 ?was	 ?given	 ?information	 ?on	 ?all	 ?the	 ?restorative	 ?justice	 ?initiatives	 ?within	 ?the	 ?CSC,	 ?and	 ?directed	 ?to	 ?a	 ?broader	 ?body	 ?of	 ?community	 ?resources;	 ?however	 ?when	 ?I	 ?asked	 ?if	 ?any	 ?of	 ?these	 ?programs	 ?worked	 ?specifically	 ?with	 ?offenders	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?I	 ?was	 ?greeted	 ?with	 ?a	 ?blank	 ?stare.	 ?	 ??Well	 ?no,	 ?they	 ?can?t	 ?do	 ?it?,	 ?I	 ?was	 ?told.	 ?I	 ?suppose	 ?I	 ?must	 ?divulge	 ?more	 ?about	 ?my	 ?personal	 ?history	 ?in	 ?order	 ?to	 ?fully	 ?communicate	 ?the	 ?effect	 ?that	 ?this	 ?response	 ?had	 ?on	 ?me.	 ?	 ?Prior	 ?to	 ?making	 ?the	 ?decision	 ?to	 ?go	 ?back	 ?to	 ?school	 ?and	 ?pursue	 ?an	 ?MSW	 ?I	 ?had	 ?been	 ?working	 ?in	 ?a	 ?community	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?centre.	 ?	 ?I	 ?worked	 ?as	 ?Community	 ?Support	 ?Worker	 ?out	 ?of	 ?a	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?clubhouse	 ?in	 ?the	 ?Fraser	 ?Valley.	 ?	 ?I	 ?loved	 ?this	 ?job.	 ?	 ?The	 ?place	 ?was	 ?wonderful,	 ?the	 ?work	 ?rewarding	 ?and	 ?the	 ?staff	 ?amazing;	 ?however	 ?what	 ?I	 ?loved	 ?most	 ?about	 ?the	 ?job	 ?was	 ?the	 ?community	 ?and	 ?the	 ?people	 ?in	 ?it,	 ?the	 ?so	 ?called	 ?clients.	 ?	 ?Having	 ?an	 ?undergraduate	 ?degree	 ?in	 ?psychology	 ?I	 ?had	 ?always	 ?been	 ?interested	 ?in	 ?mental	 ?illness,	 ?but	 ?through	 ?a	 ?much	 ?more	 ?medical	 ?and	 ?expert-??driven	 ?lens.	 ?	 ?Even	 ?previous	 ?employment	 ?positions	 ?followed	 ?this	 ?general	 ?model	 ?and	 ?reinforced	 ?my	 ?belief	 ?	 ? viii	 ?in	 ?such	 ?a	 ?worldview.	 ?	 ?It	 ?wasn?t	 ?until	 ?I	 ?began	 ?to	 ?work	 ?in	 ?the	 ?clubhouse	 ?and	 ?infiltrate	 ?that	 ?community	 ?that	 ?I	 ?learned	 ?about	 ?how	 ?na?ve	 ?and	 ?uneducated	 ?I	 ?had	 ?truly	 ?been.	 ?	 ?It	 ?was	 ?a	 ?humbling	 ?experience	 ?as	 ?I	 ?began	 ?to	 ?learn	 ?about	 ?how	 ?little	 ?I	 ?knew.	 ?	 ?I	 ?suddenly	 ?witnessed	 ?strong	 ?and	 ?inspirational	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?serious	 ?mental	 ?illnesses	 ?who	 ?maintained	 ?a	 ?rewarding	 ?quality	 ?of	 ?life.	 ?	 ?They	 ?worked,	 ?they	 ?volunteered,	 ?they	 ?dated,	 ?and	 ?they	 ?drove.	 ?	 ?They	 ?maintained	 ?relationships	 ?and	 ?raised	 ?children.	 ?	 ?They	 ?found	 ?joy	 ?in	 ?life	 ?in	 ?things	 ?that	 ?I	 ?took	 ?for	 ?granted.	 ?	 ?I	 ?gained	 ?an	 ?overwhelming	 ?respect	 ?for	 ?these	 ?individuals	 ?and	 ?began	 ?to	 ?see	 ?how	 ?strong	 ?they	 ?were	 ?rather	 ?than	 ?how	 ?weak.	 ?	 ?They	 ?struggled	 ?constantly	 ?and	 ?were	 ?often	 ?brought	 ?down	 ?by	 ?their	 ?illness,	 ?but	 ?always	 ?fought	 ?to	 ?regain	 ?control	 ?and	 ?come	 ?back.	 ?	 ?	 ?This	 ?was	 ?also	 ?when	 ?I	 ?first	 ?learned	 ?to	 ?truly	 ?appreciate	 ?the	 ?psychosocial	 ?rehabilitation	 ?model	 ?and	 ?began	 ?believing	 ?in	 ?recovery.	 ?My	 ?work	 ?in	 ?this	 ?community,	 ?which	 ?accepted	 ?me	 ?with	 ?arms	 ?wide	 ?open,	 ?truly	 ?altered	 ?my	 ?perspective	 ?and	 ?had	 ?a	 ?profound	 ?impact	 ?on	 ?my	 ?practice.	 ?	 ?I	 ?began	 ?to	 ?value	 ?strengths-??based	 ?and	 ?client-??centered	 ?approaches,	 ?and	 ?felt	 ?grateful	 ?for	 ?having	 ?been	 ?put	 ?in	 ?my	 ?place.	 ?	 ?	 ?Going	 ?back	 ?to	 ?my	 ?experience	 ?at	 ?the	 ?CSC,	 ?you	 ?can	 ?see	 ?how	 ?the	 ?answer	 ?to	 ?my	 ?question	 ?did	 ?not	 ?sit	 ?well	 ?with	 ?me.	 ?	 ?I	 ?did	 ?not	 ?say	 ?much	 ?in	 ?response	 ?at	 ?the	 ?time	 ?but	 ?went	 ?home	 ?and	 ?reflected.	 ?	 ?I	 ?thought	 ?about	 ?clients	 ?with	 ?whom	 ?I	 ?had	 ?worked	 ?in	 ?my	 ?job	 ?and	 ?conversations	 ?that	 ?I	 ?had	 ?had	 ?with	 ?them.	 ?	 ?I	 ?recounted	 ?numerous	 ?occasions	 ?where	 ?they	 ?had	 ?shared	 ?stories	 ?with	 ?me	 ?about	 ?their	 ?manic	 ?or	 ?psychotic	 ?episodes,	 ?and	 ?the	 ?feelings	 ?of	 ?guilt	 ?and	 ?shame	 ?that	 ?often	 ?accompanied	 ?them.	 ?	 ?They	 ?readily	 ?articulated	 ?emotions,	 ?experiences	 ?and	 ?empathy,	 ?and	 ?recognized	 ?the	 ?impact	 ?their	 ?actions	 ?had	 ?had	 ?on	 ?others.	 ?They	 ?recollected	 ?their	 ?stories	 ?in	 ?a	 ?temporal	 ?order	 ?that	 ?was	 ?easy	 ?to	 ?understand.	 ?	 ?Faces	 ?of	 ?my	 ?clients	 ?flashed	 ?before	 ?my	 ?eyes.	 ?	 ??What	 ?do	 ?you	 ?mean	 ?they	 ?can?t	 ?do	 ?it??	 ?I	 ?thought.	 ?Sure	 ?they	 ?can.	 ?	 ? ix	 ?It	 ?was	 ?this	 ?moment	 ?that	 ?inspired	 ?me	 ?to	 ?do	 ?something,	 ?thought	 ?I	 ?still	 ?did	 ?not	 ?know	 ?what.	 ?	 ?As	 ?I	 ?studied	 ?restorative	 ?justice	 ?and	 ?its	 ?critiques	 ?more	 ?thoroughly,	 ?my	 ?wealth	 ?of	 ?information	 ?on	 ?the	 ?topic	 ?grew	 ?and	 ?I	 ?soon	 ?discovered	 ?that	 ?the	 ?individuals	 ?I	 ?spoke	 ?with	 ?at	 ?the	 ?CSC	 ?were	 ?not	 ?alone	 ?with	 ?these	 ?preconceived	 ?assumptions	 ?about	 ?people	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness.	 ?	 ?A	 ?thorough	 ?search	 ?of	 ?the	 ?literature	 ?revealed	 ?that	 ?articles	 ?studying	 ?the	 ?use	 ?of	 ?restorative	 ?justice	 ?amongst	 ?this	 ?population	 ?were	 ?nonexistent.	 ?	 ?As	 ?I	 ?searched	 ?farther	 ?I	 ?discovered	 ?that	 ?the	 ?Canadian	 ?Mental	 ?Health	 ?Commission	 ?(2012)	 ?had	 ?outlined	 ?diversion	 ?through	 ?restorative	 ?justice	 ?as	 ?a	 ?possible	 ?method	 ?of	 ?diminishing	 ?the	 ?overrepresentation	 ?of	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?in	 ?the	 ?criminal	 ?justice	 ?system.	 ?	 ?How	 ?is	 ?it,	 ?then,	 ?that	 ?so	 ?little	 ?appears	 ?to	 ?have	 ?been	 ?done?	 ?	 ?	 ?I	 ?contacted	 ?the	 ?restorative	 ?justice	 ?department	 ?at	 ?the	 ?CSC	 ?recently	 ?through	 ?e-??mail	 ?and	 ?asked	 ?again	 ?about	 ?programs	 ?that	 ?worked	 ?specifically	 ?with	 ?this	 ?population	 ?in	 ?Canada.	 ?	 ?Again	 ?I	 ?was	 ?told	 ?that	 ?none	 ?existed	 ?as	 ?far	 ?as	 ?they	 ?knew.	 ?	 ?Since	 ?the	 ?overrepresentation	 ?of	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?is	 ?a	 ?real	 ?issue	 ?in	 ?Canadian	 ?prisons,	 ?and	 ?restorative	 ?justice	 ?has	 ?been	 ?identified	 ?as	 ?one	 ?possible	 ?solution,	 ?what	 ?is	 ?hindering	 ?the	 ?expansion	 ?of	 ?RJ	 ?programming	 ?with	 ?this	 ?population?	 ?	 ?This,	 ?along	 ?with	 ?a	 ?desire	 ?to	 ?advocate	 ?for	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?has	 ?become	 ?the	 ?main	 ?driving	 ?force	 ?behind	 ?my	 ?pursuit	 ?of	 ?this	 ?work.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? 1	 ?Introduction	 ?Restorative	 ?justice	 ?and	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?are	 ?two	 ?highly	 ?compatible	 ?fields	 ?of	 ?social	 ?work	 ?practice.	 ?	 ?I	 ?will	 ?construct	 ?this	 ?argument	 ?by	 ?exploring	 ?mental	 ?health,	 ?restorative	 ?justice	 ?and	 ?social	 ?work	 ?practice	 ?and	 ?discuss	 ?the	 ?components	 ?that	 ?make	 ?up	 ?the	 ?backbone	 ?for	 ?this	 ?research.	 ?	 ?I	 ?will	 ?begin	 ?by	 ?discussing	 ?the	 ?core	 ?principles	 ?of	 ?restorative	 ?justice,	 ?before	 ?moving	 ?on	 ?to	 ?a	 ?discussion	 ?about	 ?mental	 ?illness.	 ?	 ?I	 ?will	 ?briefly	 ?describe	 ?the	 ?history	 ?of	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?in	 ?Western	 ?culture,	 ?with	 ?special	 ?attention	 ?to	 ?how	 ?changing	 ?social	 ?norms	 ?and	 ?values	 ?influenced	 ?definitions	 ?of	 ?normal	 ?and	 ?abnormal	 ?behaviour.	 ?	 ?Following	 ?this	 ?I	 ?will	 ?discuss	 ?the	 ?biomedical	 ?model,	 ?briefly	 ?touching	 ?on	 ?some	 ?of	 ?the	 ?evidence	 ?for	 ?neurochemical	 ?explanations	 ?for	 ?mental	 ?illness.	 ?	 ?In	 ?this	 ?I	 ?will	 ?provide	 ?succinct	 ?descriptions	 ?of	 ?thought	 ?disorders,	 ?mood	 ?disorders	 ?and	 ?personality	 ?disorders,	 ?paying	 ?special	 ?focus	 ?to	 ?illnesses	 ?that	 ?are	 ?most	 ?prevalent.	 ?	 ?	 ?I	 ?will	 ?then	 ?provide	 ?an	 ?alternative	 ?approach	 ?to	 ?mental	 ?illness:	 ?one	 ?that	 ?views	 ?abnormal	 ?behaviour	 ?as	 ?a	 ?social	 ?construction,	 ?although	 ?I	 ?will	 ?present	 ?evidence	 ?in	 ?support	 ?of	 ?the	 ?argument	 ?that	 ?these	 ?two	 ?approaches	 ?need	 ?not	 ?be	 ?mutually	 ?exclusive.	 ?	 ?I	 ?will	 ?then	 ?discuss	 ?the	 ?concept	 ?of	 ?psychosocial	 ?rehabilitation	 ?and	 ?the	 ?recovery	 ?model.	 ?	 ?This	 ?will	 ?be	 ?followed	 ?by	 ?a	 ?discussion	 ?on	 ?stigma	 ?and	 ?its	 ?impact	 ?on	 ?people	 ?living	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness.	 ?	 ?	 ?I	 ?will	 ?end	 ?my	 ?literature	 ?review	 ?with	 ?a	 ?discussion	 ?about	 ?restorative	 ?justice,	 ?social	 ?work	 ?and	 ?mental	 ?health,	 ?highlighting	 ?the	 ?similarities	 ?between	 ?these	 ?fields,	 ?using	 ?the	 ?context	 ?of	 ?the	 ?literature	 ?to	 ?pave	 ?the	 ?way	 ?for	 ?my	 ?research	 ?question.	 ?	 ?I	 ?will	 ?then	 ?discuss	 ?the	 ?study	 ?itself,	 ?highlighting	 ?some	 ?of	 ?the	 ?challenges	 ?of	 ?conducting	 ?research	 ?on	 ?this	 ?topic,	 ?as	 ?well	 ?the	 ?providing	 ?support	 ?for	 ?the	 ?notion	 ?that	 ?this	 ?is	 ?in	 ?fact,	 ?a	 ?relatively	 ?new	 ?and	 ?unexplored	 ?area	 ?of	 ?research,	 ?if	 ?not	 ?of	 ?restorative	 ?justice	 ?practice.	 ?	 ?I	 ?will	 ?then	 ?present	 ?my	 ?findings	 ?before	 ?ending	 ?with	 ?a	 ?detailed	 ?	 ? 2	 ?discussion	 ?about	 ?how	 ?they	 ?relate	 ?to	 ?the	 ?literature,	 ?and	 ?what	 ?implications	 ?for	 ?restorative	 ?justice	 ?and	 ?social	 ?work	 ?practice	 ?they	 ?may	 ?yield.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? 3	 ?Literature	 ?review	 ?	 ?What	 ?is	 ?Restorative	 ?Justice?	 ?Restorative	 ?justice	 ?(RJ)	 ?is	 ?an	 ?alternative	 ?approach	 ?to	 ?the	 ?punitive	 ?model	 ?of	 ?judicial	 ?litigation.	 ?	 ?It	 ?is	 ?both	 ?a	 ?philosophy	 ?and	 ?a	 ?set	 ?of	 ?models	 ?and	 ?procedures	 ?for	 ?working	 ?with	 ?victims,	 ?offenders	 ?and	 ?communities	 ?impacted	 ?by	 ?crime.	 ?	 ?RJ	 ?aims	 ?to	 ?employ	 ?alternative	 ?methods	 ?of	 ?administering	 ?criminal	 ?justice	 ?that	 ?are	 ?more	 ?holistic	 ?and	 ?sensitive	 ?to	 ?the	 ?waves	 ?of	 ?impact	 ?that	 ?a	 ?criminal	 ?act	 ?has	 ?on	 ?those	 ?affected.	 ?	 ?These	 ?methods	 ?include,	 ?but	 ?are	 ?not	 ?limited	 ?to,	 ?victim-??offender	 ?mediation,	 ?family	 ?conferencing,	 ?community	 ?accountability	 ?boards,	 ?and	 ?sentencing	 ?circles	 ?(Correctional	 ?Service	 ?of	 ?Canada	 ?(CSC),	 ?2012;	 ?O?Brien,	 ?2007).	 ?It	 ?is	 ?widely	 ?accepted	 ?that	 ?the	 ?first	 ?case	 ?to	 ?be	 ?processed	 ?in	 ?Canada	 ?using	 ?an	 ?RJ	 ?model	 ?occurred	 ?in	 ?Elmira,	 ?Ontario	 ?in	 ?1974	 ?(Zehr,	 ?2008).	 ?	 ?It	 ?was	 ?used	 ?as	 ?an	 ?alternative	 ?method	 ?of	 ?dealing	 ?with	 ?a	 ?case	 ?involving	 ?property	 ?offences,	 ?under	 ?the	 ?pretext	 ?of	 ?the	 ?Victim	 ?Offender	 ?Reconciliation	 ?Program.	 ?	 ?Zehr	 ?(2008)	 ?argues	 ?that	 ?this	 ?case	 ?was	 ?so	 ?successful	 ?that	 ?it	 ?inspired	 ?a	 ?movement	 ?and	 ?launched	 ?the	 ?present	 ?restorative	 ?justice	 ?framework.	 ?	 ?Today,	 ?although	 ?many	 ?different	 ?models	 ?of	 ?RJ	 ?are	 ?practiced	 ?victim	 ?offender	 ?mediation	 ?remains	 ?the	 ?most	 ?frequently	 ?used	 ?in	 ?the	 ?United	 ?States	 ?and	 ?Europe	 ?(Zehr,	 ?2008).	 ?	 ?	 ?Restorative	 ?justice	 ?has	 ?its	 ?roots	 ?in	 ?Aboriginal	 ?practices	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?Mennonite	 ?conflict	 ?resolution	 ?strategies	 ?(Van	 ?Wormer,	 ?2004).	 ?	 ?It	 ?is	 ?not	 ?a	 ?new	 ?concept,	 ?though	 ?it	 ?has	 ?seen	 ?a	 ?recent	 ?re-??emergence	 ?since	 ?the	 ?1990s	 ?brought	 ?on	 ?by	 ?critics	 ?of	 ?the	 ?current	 ?punitive	 ?model	 ?(Morris,	 ?2002;	 ?O?Brien,	 ?2007;	 ?Wenzel,	 ?Okimoto,	 ?Feather,	 ?&	 ?Platow,	 ?2008).	 ?	 ?Restorative	 ?justice	 ?is	 ?a	 ?paradigm	 ?that	 ?takes	 ?crime	 ?out	 ?of	 ?the	 ?hands	 ?of	 ?judicial	 ?litigators	 ?and	 ?places	 ?it	 ?back	 ?in	 ?the	 ?hands	 ?of	 ?those	 ?it	 ?rightfully	 ?belongs	 ?to:	 ?those	 ?most	 ?affected.	 ?	 ?It	 ?sees	 ?crime	 ?not	 ?as	 ?	 ? 4	 ?an	 ?infraction	 ?on	 ?State	 ?law	 ?but	 ?rather	 ?as	 ?a	 ?rupture	 ?in	 ?relationships,	 ?and	 ?is	 ?founded	 ?on	 ?the	 ?notion	 ?that	 ?it	 ?is	 ?through	 ?rebuilding	 ?these	 ?relationships	 ?that	 ?emotional	 ?restitution,	 ?restoration	 ?and	 ?healing	 ?can	 ?begin	 ?(CSC,	 ?2012;	 ?Wenzel	 ?et	 ?al.,	 ?2008).	 ?	 ?RJ	 ?is	 ?about	 ?repairing	 ?harm	 ?not	 ?about	 ?obtaining	 ?vengeance	 ?(Van	 ?Wormer,	 ?2004;	 ?Wenzel	 ?et	 ?al.,	 ?2008).	 ?	 ?Furthermore	 ?it	 ?acknowledges	 ?that	 ?a	 ?criminal	 ?act	 ?impacts	 ?more	 ?than	 ?just	 ?the	 ?offender	 ?and	 ?the	 ?victim.	 ?	 ?Consequently	 ?it	 ?also	 ?gives	 ?voice	 ?to	 ?the	 ?community	 ?(CSC,	 ?2012;	 ?O?Brien,	 ?2007;	 ?Van	 ?Wormer,	 ?2004).	 ?	 ?RJ	 ?incorporates	 ?a	 ?needs-??based	 ?approach	 ?to	 ?healing	 ?and	 ?recognizes	 ?that	 ?incarceration	 ?is	 ?not	 ?the	 ?answer.	 ?RJ	 ?ideology	 ?is	 ?based	 ?on	 ?three	 ?core	 ?principles:	 ?to	 ?repair	 ?harm,	 ?to	 ?reduce	 ?risk	 ?and	 ?to	 ?empower	 ?community	 ?(O?Brien,	 ?2007).	 ?	 ?Zehr	 ?(2008)	 ?argues	 ?that	 ?restorative	 ?justice	 ?is	 ?also	 ?grounded	 ?in	 ?three	 ?basic	 ?assumptions:	 ??1)	 ?crime	 ?is	 ?a	 ?violation	 ?of	 ?people	 ?and	 ?relationships,	 ?2)	 ?violations	 ?create	 ?obligations,	 ?and	 ?3)	 ?the	 ?central	 ?obligation	 ?is	 ?to	 ?put	 ?right	 ?the	 ?wrongs?	 ?(p.4).	 ?	 ?The	 ?paradigm	 ?also	 ?recognizes	 ?that	 ?although	 ?the	 ?victim	 ?may	 ?be	 ?most	 ?affected	 ?by	 ?the	 ?crime,	 ?there	 ?are	 ?often	 ?numerous	 ?stakeholders	 ?whose	 ?interests	 ?should	 ?be	 ?considered.	 ?	 ?Consequently	 ?RJ	 ?recognizes	 ?the	 ?victim,	 ?the	 ?offender,	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?the	 ?community,	 ?all	 ?of	 ?whom	 ?are	 ?given	 ?equal	 ?voice	 ?(CSC,	 ?2012;	 ?O?Brien,	 ?2007).	 ?	 ?	 ?This	 ?approach	 ??condemns	 ?the	 ?act	 ?but	 ?not	 ?the	 ?actor?	 ?(Van	 ?Wormer,	 ?2004,	 ?p.107)	 ?and	 ?is	 ?victim-??led,	 ?making	 ?victim	 ?empowerment	 ?a	 ?key	 ?component	 ?of	 ?any	 ?RJ	 ?process.	 ?	 ?Victims	 ?are	 ?supported	 ?so	 ?that	 ?they	 ?can	 ?transform	 ?from	 ??victim?	 ?to	 ??survivor?	 ?and	 ?are	 ?consequently	 ?at	 ?the	 ?forefront	 ?of	 ?any	 ?RJ	 ?undertaking	 ?(Sullivan	 ?&	 ?Tifft,	 ?2005).	 ?	 ?On	 ?the	 ?other	 ?hand,	 ?the	 ?offender	 ?is	 ?given	 ?the	 ?opportunity	 ?to	 ?take	 ?ownership	 ?of	 ?his	 ?or	 ?her	 ?actions,	 ?accept	 ?accountability,	 ?apologize	 ?and	 ?begin	 ?to	 ?make	 ?amends	 ?for	 ?the	 ?hurt	 ?that	 ?he	 ?or	 ?she	 ?inflicted	 ?(CSC,	 ?2012;	 ?Sullivan	 ?&	 ?Tifft,	 ?2005;	 ?Wenzel	 ?et	 ?al.,	 ?2008).	 ?	 ?	 ?It	 ?is	 ?not	 ?an	 ?easy	 ?sort	 ?of	 ?criminal	 ?justice.	 ?	 ?In	 ?fact,	 ?one	 ?could	 ?argue	 ?that	 ?RJ	 ?is	 ?the	 ?true	 ?expression	 ?of	 ?being	 ?	 ? 5	 ?tough	 ?on	 ?crime.	 ?	 ?Alternatively,	 ?RJ	 ?has	 ?also	 ?been	 ?referred	 ?to	 ?as	 ?the	 ?peacemaking,	 ?conflict-??resolution	 ?(Zehr,	 ?2008)	 ?or	 ?restorative	 ?approach	 ?to	 ?justice	 ?(Restorative	 ?Justice	 ?Council	 ?(RJC),	 ?2012)	 ?as	 ?a	 ?means	 ?of	 ?highlighting	 ?its	 ?emphasis	 ?on	 ?healing	 ?and	 ?resolution.	 ?Few	 ?could	 ?hold	 ?more	 ?legitimacy	 ?when	 ?speaking	 ?about	 ?RJ?s	 ?success	 ?than	 ?those	 ?who	 ?have	 ?been	 ?through	 ?it.	 ?	 ?Daniel	 ?Johnson	 ?(2008),	 ?an	 ?offender	 ?serving	 ?a	 ?lengthy	 ?sentence	 ?in	 ?a	 ?Texas	 ?prison	 ?for	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?wrote	 ?an	 ?article	 ?detailing	 ?his	 ?experience	 ?with	 ?RJ.	 ?	 ?He	 ?writes:	 ??The	 ?dialogue	 ?that	 ?occurred	 ?between	 ?my	 ?victim	 ?and	 ?me	 ?was?.that	 ?missing	 ?component	 ?in	 ?my	 ?own	 ?personal	 ?regeneration	 ?that,	 ?for	 ?me,	 ?could	 ?not	 ?have	 ?been	 ?fulfilled	 ?in	 ?any	 ?other	 ?way?	 ?(p.90).	 ?	 ?It	 ?is	 ?perhaps	 ?as	 ?a	 ?result	 ?of	 ?success	 ?stories	 ?like	 ?these	 ?that	 ?RJ	 ?moved	 ?outside	 ?of	 ?the	 ?criminal	 ?justice	 ?system	 ?and	 ?begun	 ?to	 ?infiltrate	 ?a	 ?wider	 ?range	 ?of	 ?areas,	 ?including	 ?schools,	 ?churches,	 ?care	 ?homes,	 ?neighbourhoods,	 ?and	 ?workplaces	 ?as	 ?a	 ?successful	 ?conflict	 ?resolution	 ?technique	 ?(RJC,	 ?2012;	 ?Wenzel	 ?et	 ?al.,	 ?2008;	 ?Zehr,	 ?2008).	 ?	 ?The	 ?potential	 ?for	 ?its	 ?use	 ?appears	 ?extensive.	 ?	 ?Restorative	 ?Justice	 ?and	 ?the	 ?UK	 ?The	 ?United	 ?Kingdom	 ?(UK)	 ?has	 ?recently	 ?demonstrated	 ?increased	 ?interest	 ?in	 ?RJ	 ?within	 ?the	 ?context	 ?of	 ?its	 ?criminal	 ?justice	 ?system.	 ?	 ?In	 ?the	 ?autumn	 ?of	 ?2012,	 ?a	 ?decision	 ?was	 ?made	 ?in	 ?the	 ?House	 ?of	 ?Lords	 ?to	 ?amend	 ?the	 ?Crime	 ?and	 ?Courts	 ?Bill,	 ?introducing	 ?restorative	 ?justice	 ?legislation	 ?for	 ?adult	 ?offenders	 ?(RJC,	 ?2012).	 ?	 ?This	 ?was	 ?done	 ?following	 ?a	 ?consultation	 ?process,	 ?in	 ?which	 ?politicians,	 ?think	 ?tanks	 ?and	 ?interested	 ?parties	 ?were	 ?able	 ?to	 ?give	 ?contributions.	 ?	 ?A	 ?document	 ?containing	 ?documentation	 ?of	 ?said	 ?consultations,	 ?titled	 ??Punishment	 ?and	 ?Reform:	 ?Effective	 ?Community	 ?Sentences?,	 ?was	 ?published	 ?the	 ?same	 ?day	 ?(RJC,	 ?2012).	 ?	 ?An	 ?online	 ?petition	 ?recruiting	 ?public	 ?support	 ?for	 ?such	 ?endeavors	 ?had	 ?also	 ?contributed	 ?to	 ?the	 ?promotion	 ?of	 ?this	 ?movement.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? 6	 ?The	 ?main	 ?guiding	 ?force	 ?behind	 ?this	 ?new	 ?legislation	 ?was	 ?an	 ?acknowledgement	 ?that	 ?the	 ?criminal	 ?justice	 ?system	 ?had	 ?been	 ?too	 ?focused	 ?on	 ?offenders,	 ?and	 ?insufficiently	 ?on	 ?victims	 ?(RJC,	 ?2012).	 ?	 ?The	 ?restorative	 ?justice	 ?legislation	 ?was	 ?consequently	 ?a	 ?response	 ?to	 ?this	 ?deficiency,	 ?and	 ?inspired	 ?by	 ?victim?s	 ?voices.	 ?	 ?As	 ?such,	 ?legislation	 ?implementers	 ?and	 ?supporters	 ?defined	 ?RJ	 ?as	 ?a	 ?severe	 ?sort	 ?of	 ?justice,	 ?where	 ?offenders	 ?were	 ?made	 ?to	 ?face	 ?the	 ?consequences	 ?of	 ?their	 ?actions	 ?and	 ?held	 ?accountable	 ?in	 ?the	 ?face	 ?of	 ?their	 ?victims	 ?(RJC,	 ?2012).	 ?	 ?As	 ?a	 ?component	 ?of	 ?the	 ?criminal	 ?justice	 ?system,	 ?one	 ?could	 ?assess	 ?that	 ?this	 ?approach	 ?remained	 ?within	 ?the	 ?confines	 ?of	 ?a	 ?retributive	 ?model,	 ?with	 ?specific	 ?emphasis	 ?on	 ?victims?	 ?rights.	 ?	 ?Wenzel	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?(2008)	 ?note	 ?that	 ?the	 ?Western	 ?criminal	 ?justice	 ?system	 ?is	 ?deeply	 ?entrenched	 ?with	 ?the	 ?notion	 ?of	 ?punishment.	 ?	 ?The	 ?belief	 ?that	 ?punishment	 ?of	 ?the	 ?offender	 ?is	 ?the	 ?only	 ?way	 ?to	 ?uphold	 ?or	 ?rebuild	 ?justice	 ?is	 ?central	 ?to	 ?a	 ?Western	 ?way	 ?of	 ?thinking	 ?about	 ?criminal	 ?justice.	 ?	 ?Consequently,	 ?it	 ?is	 ?not	 ?surprising	 ?that	 ?creators	 ?of	 ?this	 ?new	 ?legislation	 ?placed	 ?it	 ?within	 ?the	 ?context	 ?of	 ?a	 ?punitive	 ?worldview,	 ?with	 ?emphasis	 ?on	 ?offender	 ?accountability.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?The	 ?Restorative	 ?Justice	 ?Council,	 ?a	 ?non-??profit	 ?advocacy	 ?group	 ?that	 ?played	 ?an	 ?instrumental	 ?role	 ?in	 ?the	 ?creation	 ?of	 ?the	 ?new	 ?legislation,	 ?was	 ?empowered	 ?with	 ?taking	 ?the	 ?lead	 ?on	 ?the	 ?implementation	 ?on	 ?this	 ?new	 ?legislation,	 ?in	 ?close	 ?partnership	 ?with	 ?the	 ?Ministry	 ?of	 ?Justice.	 ?	 ?It	 ?is	 ?presently	 ?moving	 ?toward	 ?standardization	 ?of	 ?practice,	 ?accreditation	 ?and	 ?promotion	 ?of	 ?best-??practice	 ?methods	 ?(RJC,	 ?2013).	 ?	 ?It	 ?has	 ?developed	 ?a	 ?set	 ?of	 ?best-??practice	 ?guidelines	 ?for	 ?practitioners,	 ?and	 ?offers	 ?a	 ?practitioner	 ?and	 ?trainer	 ?registry.	 ?	 ?It	 ?also	 ?continues	 ?to	 ?be	 ?involved	 ?in	 ?RJ	 ?research	 ?and	 ?communication	 ?with	 ?the	 ?public	 ?on	 ?matters	 ?relating	 ?to	 ?RJ.	 ?The	 ?RJC	 ?claims	 ?that	 ?this	 ?new	 ?legislation	 ?is	 ?the	 ??	 ?biggest	 ?development	 ?for	 ?restorative	 ?justice	 ?in	 ?England	 ?and	 ?Wales	 ?since	 ?legislation	 ?introducing	 ?referral	 ?order	 ?panels	 ?to	 ?the	 ?	 ? 7	 ?youth	 ?justice	 ?system	 ?in	 ?1999?(RJC,	 ??Legislation	 ?Introducing	 ?Restorative	 ?Justice	 ?for	 ?Victims	 ?of	 ?Adult	 ?Offenders	 ?Announced?,	 ?2012).	 ?	 ?This	 ?present	 ?legislation	 ?initiates	 ?RJ	 ?at	 ?the	 ?pre-??sentencing	 ?stage,	 ?attempting	 ?to	 ?offer	 ?services	 ?at	 ?the	 ?earliest	 ?stage	 ?possible	 ?within	 ?criminal	 ?justice	 ?proceedings.	 ?	 ?Before	 ?this	 ?legislation	 ?was	 ?brought	 ?into	 ?existence,	 ?England	 ?and	 ?Wales	 ?only	 ?offered	 ?RJ	 ?to	 ?young	 ?offenders,	 ?primarily	 ?through	 ?referral	 ?orders	 ?(Ministry	 ?of	 ?Justice,	 ?2012).	 ?	 ?The	 ?RJ	 ?program	 ?for	 ?youth	 ?continues	 ?to	 ?exist,	 ?and	 ?is	 ?based	 ?on	 ?principles	 ?of	 ?responsibility,	 ?reparation	 ?and	 ?reintegration	 ?(Ministry	 ?of	 ?Justice,	 ?2012).	 ?	 ?It	 ?was	 ?introduced	 ?as	 ?a	 ?measure	 ?to	 ?decrease	 ?reoffending	 ?amongst	 ?young	 ?people	 ?who	 ?came	 ?into	 ?contact	 ?with	 ?the	 ?criminal	 ?justice	 ?system.	 ?	 ?As	 ?in	 ?other	 ?parts	 ?of	 ?the	 ?world,	 ?RJ	 ?in	 ?the	 ?UK	 ?also	 ?exists	 ?at	 ?the	 ?grassroots	 ?level,	 ?and	 ?is	 ?not	 ?solely	 ?dependant	 ?on	 ?the	 ?criminal	 ?justice	 ?system.	 ?	 ?Other	 ?examples	 ?of	 ?RJ	 ?practice	 ?include	 ?neighbourhood	 ?and	 ?community	 ?mediation	 ?schemes,	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?RJ	 ?programs	 ?run	 ?by	 ?police	 ?and	 ?probation	 ?officers,	 ?such	 ?as	 ?the	 ?Community	 ?Resolution	 ?program	 ?being	 ?steered	 ?by	 ?the	 ?Sussex	 ?Police	 ?Department	 ?(Community	 ?Resolution,	 ?n.d.).	 ?	 ?Although	 ?there	 ?are	 ?currently	 ?no	 ?RJ	 ?programs	 ?that	 ?work	 ?specifically	 ?with	 ?service	 ?users	 ?who	 ?have	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?issues,	 ?there	 ?may	 ?be	 ?some	 ?growing	 ?interest	 ?in	 ?processing	 ?such	 ?cases	 ?within	 ?the	 ?parameters	 ?of	 ?the	 ?forensics	 ?system.	 ?	 ?Recently,	 ?there	 ?appears	 ?to	 ?be	 ?some	 ?discussion	 ?about	 ?launching	 ?a	 ?restorative	 ?justice	 ?program	 ?in	 ?a	 ?forensic	 ?unit;	 ?however,	 ?this	 ?endeavor	 ?remains	 ?in	 ?the	 ?early	 ?stages	 ?of	 ?development	 ?and	 ?cannot	 ?yet	 ?offer	 ?any	 ?insights	 ?into	 ?working	 ?with	 ?this	 ?population.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? 8	 ?What	 ?is	 ?mental	 ?illness?	 ?A	 ?brief	 ?history.	 ?	 ?Before	 ?discussing	 ?the	 ?relevance	 ?of	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?to	 ?RJ,	 ?it	 ?is	 ?important	 ?to	 ?briefly	 ?discuss	 ?its	 ?history.	 ?	 ?This	 ?history	 ?is	 ?significant	 ?for	 ?a	 ?number	 ?of	 ?reasons.	 ?	 ?First,	 ?acknowledging	 ?it	 ?pays	 ?homage	 ?to	 ?those	 ?who	 ?have	 ?been	 ?victims	 ?of	 ?harsh	 ?and	 ?inhumane	 ?attitudes	 ?towards	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?and	 ?abnormal	 ?behaviour.	 ?	 ?Second,	 ?the	 ?history	 ?of	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?acts	 ?as	 ?a	 ?warning,	 ?reminding	 ?us	 ?of	 ?the	 ?grave	 ?ills	 ?we	 ?have	 ?done	 ?to	 ?individuals	 ?who	 ?are	 ?different.	 ?	 ?Third,	 ?this	 ?history	 ?has	 ?influenced,	 ?if	 ?not	 ?created,	 ?present	 ?understandings	 ?of	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?and	 ?mental	 ?health.	 ?	 ?Lastly,	 ?it	 ?provides	 ?a	 ?context	 ?for	 ?discourse	 ?on	 ?this	 ?subject	 ?matter.	 ?	 ?It	 ?is	 ?likely	 ?that	 ?for	 ?as	 ?long	 ?as	 ?there	 ?have	 ?been	 ?societies,	 ?there	 ?have	 ?been	 ?individuals	 ?who	 ?behaved	 ?in	 ?ways	 ?that	 ?were	 ?deemed	 ?unusual	 ?or	 ?abnormal.	 ?	 ?In	 ?medieval	 ?Europe,	 ?people	 ?sought	 ?explanations	 ?for	 ?such	 ?abnormalities	 ?through	 ?religion	 ?and	 ?spirituality.	 ?	 ?Abnormal	 ?behaviour,	 ?including	 ?mental	 ?illness,	 ?fell	 ?under	 ?the	 ?jurisdiction	 ?of	 ?the	 ?Christian	 ?church,	 ?which	 ?dubbed	 ?such	 ?behaviours	 ?the	 ?work	 ?of	 ?the	 ?devil	 ?(Davison	 ?et	 ?al,	 ?2004;	 ?Foucault,	 ?1965).	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? Leading	 ?up	 ?to	 ?the	 ?Enlightenment,	 ?medicine	 ?became	 ?an	 ?increasingly	 ?powerful	 ?set	 ?of	 ?discursive	 ?practices	 ?aimed	 ?at	 ?regulating	 ?abnormal	 ?behaviour.	 ?	 ?The	 ?power	 ?of	 ?the	 ?church	 ?on	 ?this	 ?front	 ?dwindled,	 ?and	 ?this	 ?behaviour	 ?began	 ?to	 ?be	 ?defined	 ?as	 ?an	 ?illness	 ?or	 ?disease,	 ?a	 ?defect	 ?within	 ?the	 ?individual	 ?(Scull,	 ?1977).	 ?	 ?By	 ?the	 ?fifteenth	 ?century,	 ?hospitals	 ?that	 ?had	 ?previously	 ?housed	 ?those	 ?sick	 ?with	 ?leprosy	 ?were	 ?being	 ?converted	 ?into	 ?psychiatric	 ?facilities	 ?as	 ?the	 ?prevalence	 ?of	 ?leprosy	 ?in	 ?Europe	 ?began	 ?to	 ?fall	 ?with	 ?the	 ?end	 ?of	 ?the	 ?crusades	 ?(Davison	 ?et	 ?al.,	 ?2004).	 ?	 ?Physicians	 ?began	 ?to	 ?replace	 ?the	 ?roles	 ?of	 ?clerics,	 ?and	 ?by	 ?the	 ?fifteenth	 ?and	 ?sixteenth	 ?centuries	 ?Europe	 ?witnessed	 ?a	 ?major	 ?boom	 ?in	 ?the	 ?creation	 ?of	 ?asylums	 ?for	 ?the	 ?mentally	 ?ill	 ?(Davison	 ?et	 ?al.,	 ?2004).	 ?	 ?Political	 ?and	 ?ideological	 ?changes	 ?that	 ?began	 ?to	 ?infiltrate	 ?Europe	 ?	 ? 9	 ?paved	 ?the	 ?way	 ?for	 ?confinement,	 ?as	 ?a	 ?means	 ?of	 ?controlling	 ?those	 ?deemed	 ?abnormal,	 ?deficient	 ?and	 ?disabled	 ?(Foucault,	 ?1965;	 ?Scull,	 ?1977).	 ?	 ?These	 ?political	 ?changes,	 ?which	 ?idolized	 ?work	 ?and	 ?economic	 ?growth,	 ?abominated	 ?idleness,	 ?and	 ?in	 ?so	 ?doing,	 ?abhorred	 ?all	 ?those	 ?who	 ?were	 ?unable	 ?to	 ?contribute	 ?(Foucault,	 ?1965;	 ?Pescosolido	 ?&	 ?Rubin,	 ?2000;	 ?Scull,	 ?1977).	 ?	 ?Idleness	 ?became	 ?the	 ?new	 ?leprosy,	 ?and	 ?the	 ?mentally	 ?ill,	 ?the	 ?disabled,	 ?the	 ?begging	 ?poor	 ?and	 ?those	 ?convicted	 ?of	 ?criminal	 ?offences	 ?became	 ?the	 ?new	 ?lepers;	 ?individuals	 ?whose	 ?presence	 ?in	 ?society	 ?was	 ?unwanted.	 ?	 ?	 ?For	 ?a	 ?long	 ?time	 ?these	 ?lunatic	 ?asylums	 ?were	 ?deplorable	 ?places,	 ?where	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?were	 ?treated	 ?as	 ?little	 ?more	 ?than	 ?animals.	 ?	 ?During	 ?the	 ?18th	 ?century,	 ?increasing	 ?value	 ?on	 ?productivity,	 ?efficiency	 ?and	 ?pursuit	 ?of	 ?business	 ?became	 ?a	 ?catalyst	 ?for	 ?what	 ?Scull	 ?(1977)	 ?refers	 ?to	 ?as	 ?the	 ?development	 ?of	 ?a	 ??trade	 ?in	 ?lunacy?	 ?(p.344)	 ?in	 ?the	 ?U.S.	 ?	 ?Lunatic	 ?asylums	 ?and	 ??madhouses?	 ?began	 ?to	 ?become	 ?privatized	 ?in	 ?order	 ?to	 ?generate	 ?profit	 ?for	 ?their	 ?owners.	 ?At	 ?the	 ?same	 ?time,	 ?a	 ?similar	 ?trend	 ?was	 ?taking	 ?place	 ?in	 ?Europe.	 ?	 ?It	 ?was	 ?during	 ?this	 ?century	 ?that	 ?the	 ?Bethlehem	 ?Asylum	 ?in	 ?London,	 ?England,	 ?became	 ?one	 ?of	 ?the	 ?city?s	 ?greatest	 ?tourist	 ?attractions,	 ?attracting	 ?people	 ?from	 ?all	 ?over	 ?who	 ?came	 ?to	 ?witness	 ?the	 ?feral,	 ?wild	 ?and	 ?untamed	 ?behaviours	 ?of	 ?individuals	 ?who	 ?were	 ?unfortunate	 ?enough	 ?to	 ?be	 ?confined	 ?within	 ?its	 ?walls	 ?(Davison	 ?et	 ?al.,	 ?2004).	 ?	 ?Though	 ?originally	 ?opened	 ?as	 ?a	 ?general	 ?hospital	 ?in	 ?1243,	 ?Henry	 ?VIII	 ?offered	 ?it	 ?to	 ?the	 ?City	 ?of	 ?London	 ?in	 ?1546	 ?for	 ?the	 ?sole	 ?purpose	 ?of	 ?confining	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?(Davison	 ?et	 ?al.,	 ?2004).	 ?	 ?By	 ?the	 ?18th	 ?and	 ?19th	 ?centuries	 ?this	 ?hospital	 ?rivaled	 ?the	 ?Tower	 ?of	 ?London	 ?and	 ?Westminster	 ?Abby	 ?as	 ?a	 ?tourist	 ?destination,	 ?and	 ?admission	 ?was	 ?granted	 ?through	 ?the	 ?sale	 ?of	 ?entrance	 ?tickets	 ?(Davison	 ?et	 ?al.,	 ?2004).	 ?	 ?Mental	 ?illness,	 ?it	 ?seems,	 ?became	 ?frightening	 ?yet	 ?sensational	 ?entertainment.	 ?	 ? 10	 ?During	 ?the	 ?17th	 ?and	 ?18th	 ?centuries,	 ?European	 ?medical	 ?physicians	 ?began	 ?to	 ?study	 ?these	 ?unusual	 ?behaviours,	 ?conceptualizing	 ?them	 ?as	 ?pathologies	 ?that	 ?must	 ?be	 ?treated	 ?(Scull,	 ?1977).	 ?	 ?This	 ?era,	 ?known	 ?as	 ?the	 ?Enlightenment,	 ?had	 ?a	 ?significant	 ?impact	 ?on	 ?attitudes	 ?toward	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?(Pescosolido	 ?&	 ?Rubin,	 ?2000).	 ?	 ?This	 ?was	 ?the	 ?birth	 ?of	 ?scientific	 ?medicine,	 ?which	 ?promoted	 ?the	 ?notion	 ?that	 ?through	 ?science,	 ?physicians	 ?had	 ?the	 ?power	 ?to	 ?treat	 ?mental	 ?disorders	 ?(Pescosolido	 ?&	 ?Rubin,	 ?2000;	 ?Scull,	 ?1977).	 ?	 ?It	 ?was	 ?during	 ?this	 ?time	 ?that	 ?physicians	 ?began	 ?to	 ?administer	 ?experimental	 ?treatments	 ?that	 ?included	 ?techniques	 ?such	 ?as	 ?removing	 ?large	 ?quantities	 ?of	 ?blood,	 ?frightening	 ?the	 ?patients	 ?(nearly)	 ?to	 ?death	 ?and	 ?shackling	 ?them	 ?to	 ?the	 ?walls	 ?within	 ?their	 ?cells	 ?in	 ?order	 ?to	 ?prevent	 ?self-??harm	 ?(Davison	 ?et	 ?al.,	 ?2004).	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?Pescosolido	 ?and	 ?Rubin	 ?(2000)	 ?and	 ?Scull	 ?(1977)	 ?note	 ?a	 ?similar	 ?pattern	 ?of	 ?socio-??environmental	 ?influence	 ?on	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?in	 ?the	 ?United	 ?States.	 ?	 ?They	 ?describe	 ?a	 ?pre-??industrial	 ?world	 ?in	 ?which	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?fell	 ?largely	 ?under	 ?the	 ?jurisdiction	 ?of	 ?family	 ?and	 ?community.	 ?	 ?Though	 ?lunatic	 ?asylums	 ?came	 ?into	 ?existence	 ?in	 ?the	 ?U.S.	 ?in	 ?1773	 ?(Davison	 ?et	 ?al.,	 ?2004),	 ?they	 ?were	 ?reserved	 ?for	 ?individuals	 ?who	 ?were	 ?lonesome	 ?strangers,	 ?and	 ?consequently,	 ?had	 ?no	 ?family	 ?or	 ?community	 ?to	 ?fall	 ?back	 ?on.	 ?	 ?Pescosolido	 ?and	 ?Rubin	 ?(2000)	 ?and	 ?Scull	 ?(1977)	 ?argue	 ?that	 ?this	 ?changed	 ?with	 ?the	 ?emergence	 ?of	 ?industrialization	 ?and	 ?a	 ?growing	 ?popularly	 ?of	 ?the	 ?market	 ?economy.	 ?	 ?New	 ?attitudes	 ?regarding	 ?economics,	 ?and	 ?the	 ?subsequent	 ?demographic	 ?shifts	 ?spurred	 ?on	 ?by	 ?demands	 ?for	 ?economic	 ?growth	 ?caused	 ?a	 ?breach	 ?in	 ?traditional	 ?bonds	 ?of	 ?family	 ?and	 ?community,	 ?making	 ?it	 ?difficult	 ?for	 ?these	 ?social	 ?institutions	 ?to	 ?continue	 ?providing	 ?care.	 ?	 ?Scull	 ?(1977)	 ?also	 ?notes	 ?that	 ?the	 ?new	 ?market	 ?economy	 ?put	 ?greater	 ?pressure	 ?on	 ?a	 ?need	 ?to	 ?differentiate	 ?between	 ?able-??bodied	 ?and	 ?non-??able	 ?bodied	 ?individuals,	 ?since	 ?work	 ?and	 ?productivity	 ?began	 ?to	 ?hold	 ?increasing	 ?value.	 ?	 ?Consequently,	 ?the	 ?institutionalization	 ?of	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?who	 ?were	 ?deemed	 ?non	 ?able-??bodied	 ?	 ? 11	 ?escalated,	 ?continuing	 ?well	 ?into	 ?the	 ?20th	 ?century	 ?and	 ?reaching	 ?an	 ?all-??time	 ?high	 ?in	 ?1957	 ?(Pescosolido	 ?&	 ?Rubin,	 ?2000).	 ?	 ?It	 ?was	 ?during	 ?the	 ?1950s	 ?that	 ?word	 ?began	 ?to	 ?spread	 ?in	 ?the	 ?U.S.	 ?about	 ?the	 ?deplorable	 ?conditions	 ?of	 ?psychiatric	 ?institutions	 ?(Pescolido	 ?&	 ?Rubin,	 ?2000).	 ?	 ?This	 ?was	 ?also	 ?when	 ?antipsychotic	 ?medication	 ?was	 ?first	 ?introduced	 ?(Pescosolido	 ?&	 ?Rubin,	 ?2000;	 ?Davison	 ?et	 ?al.,	 ?2004).	 ?	 ?With	 ?such	 ?advances	 ?in	 ?biochemistry	 ?and	 ?medicine,	 ?this	 ?era	 ?also	 ?witnessed	 ?the	 ?birth	 ?of	 ?the	 ?biomedical	 ?approach	 ?to	 ?mental	 ?illness,	 ?which	 ?some	 ?argue	 ?continues	 ?to	 ?dominate	 ?discourse	 ?on	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?to	 ?this	 ?day	 ?(Estroff,	 ?1991;	 ?Fee,	 ?2000).	 ?	 ?Additionally,	 ?the	 ?1950s	 ?also	 ?saw	 ?the	 ?publication	 ?of	 ?the	 ?first	 ?Diagnostic	 ?and	 ?Statistical	 ?Manual	 ?(DSM)	 ?in	 ?1952	 ?(American	 ?Psychiatric	 ?Association	 ?(APA),	 ?2012),	 ?and	 ?a	 ?subsequent	 ?shift	 ?toward	 ?classifying	 ?and	 ?categorizing	 ?mental	 ?disorders	 ?in	 ?order	 ?to	 ?facilitate	 ?the	 ?study	 ?of	 ?their	 ?causality,	 ?treatment	 ?and	 ?epidemiology	 ?(Passer	 ?&	 ?Smith,	 ?2001).	 ?The	 ?biomedical	 ?approach.	 ?	 ?According	 ?to	 ?Hick	 ?(2007),	 ?the	 ?medical	 ?model	 ?views	 ?disability,	 ?including	 ?mental	 ?illness,	 ?as	 ?an	 ?individual	 ?health	 ?problem	 ?that	 ?ought	 ?to	 ?be	 ?dealt	 ?with	 ?medically.	 ?	 ?To	 ?quote	 ?Dwight	 ?Fee	 ?(2000):	 ?	 ??	 ?We	 ?live	 ?in	 ?a	 ?world	 ?where	 ?biomedical	 ?and	 ?reductionist	 ?understandings	 ?of	 ?mental	 ? illness	 ?are	 ?dominant	 ?in	 ?scholarly,	 ?scientific	 ?and	 ?psychotherapeutic	 ?worldviews	 ?and	 ? practice.	 ?	 ?The	 ?pervasive	 ?viewpoint	 ?is	 ?that	 ?the	 ?only	 ?way	 ?that	 ?mental	 ?illnesses	 ?can	 ?be	 ? recognized	 ?as	 ??real?	 ?or	 ?worthy	 ?of	 ?funded	 ?research,	 ?insurance	 ?coverage,	 ?rigorous	 ? study	 ?and?coalition-??building,	 ?is	 ?when	 ?they	 ?are	 ?anchored	 ?in	 ?the	 ?language	 ?of	 ?bio	 ? physiology	 ?or	 ?some	 ?other	 ?deep-??seated	 ?individual	 ?factor	 ?(p.1)?.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?In1982,	 ?John	 ?Townsend	 ?wrote	 ?that	 ?the	 ?field	 ?of	 ?psychiatry	 ?is	 ?rooted	 ?on	 ?two	 ?fundamental	 ?assumptions.	 ?	 ?The	 ?first	 ?is	 ?that	 ?mental	 ?disorders	 ?are	 ?diseases	 ?that	 ?should	 ?be	 ?	 ? 12	 ?treated.	 ?	 ?The	 ?second	 ?is	 ?that	 ?psychiatric	 ?treatments	 ?are	 ?relatively	 ?effective	 ?and	 ?seldom	 ?harmful	 ?to	 ?the	 ?patient	 ?(p.786).	 ?	 ?This	 ?attitude	 ?is	 ?perhaps	 ?reflective	 ?of	 ?the	 ?larger	 ?biomedical	 ?approach	 ?to	 ?mental	 ?illness.	 ?	 ?The	 ?Oxford	 ?Dictionary	 ?Online	 ?(2013)	 ?defines	 ?medicine	 ?as	 ??1)	 ?the	 ?science	 ?of	 ?practice	 ?of	 ?the	 ?diagnosis,	 ?treatment,	 ?and	 ?prevention	 ?of	 ?disease,	 ?2)	 ?drug	 ?or	 ?other	 ?preparation	 ?for	 ?the	 ?treatment	 ?or	 ?prevention	 ?of	 ?disease?	 ?(?Definition	 ?of	 ?Medicine	 ?in	 ?English?,	 ?para.	 ?1	 ?&	 ?2).	 ?	 ?Given	 ?psychiatry?s	 ?positioning	 ?as	 ?a	 ?medical	 ?specialty,	 ?such	 ?conceptualizing	 ?of	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?as	 ?an	 ?ailment	 ?or	 ?pathology	 ?is	 ?not	 ?surprising.	 ?	 ?Townsend	 ?(1982)	 ?broadens	 ?his	 ?argument	 ?by	 ?claiming	 ?that	 ?within	 ?such	 ?parameters,	 ?psychiatry	 ?sees	 ?deviant	 ?or	 ?abnormal	 ?behaviour	 ?as	 ?a	 ?disease,	 ?and	 ?the	 ?specific	 ?behaviours	 ?and	 ?mannerisms	 ?associated	 ?with	 ?it	 ?as	 ?symptoms	 ?of	 ?a	 ?disorder.	 ?	 ?As	 ?a	 ?result,	 ?psychiatry	 ?places	 ?the	 ?locus	 ?of	 ?the	 ?disease	 ?within	 ?the	 ?individual.	 ?	 ?Townsend	 ?(1982)	 ?also	 ?supports	 ?the	 ?argument	 ?by	 ?Scheff	 ?(1963),	 ?that	 ?psychiatrists	 ?are	 ??trained	 ?to	 ?look	 ?for	 ?pathology?	 ?(p.	 ?789)	 ?and	 ?that	 ??	 ?symptoms	 ?of	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?generally	 ?consist	 ?of	 ?disruptive	 ?behaviour,	 ?and	 ?although	 ?psychiatric	 ?treatments	 ?may	 ?be	 ?therapeutic	 ?in	 ?a	 ?biomedical	 ?sense,	 ?the	 ?only	 ?concrete	 ?evidence	 ?that	 ?they	 ?are	 ?therapeutic	 ?is	 ?that	 ?they	 ?suppress	 ?the	 ?disruptive	 ?behaviour?	 ?(p.793).	 ?	 ?In	 ?other	 ?words,	 ?he	 ?argues	 ?that	 ?psychiatrist?s	 ?roles	 ?are	 ?generally	 ?confined	 ?to	 ?clinical	 ?settings	 ?and	 ?a	 ?reduction	 ?of	 ?symptoms,	 ?and	 ?as	 ?such,	 ?may	 ?not	 ?be	 ?largely	 ?involved	 ?in	 ?incorporating	 ?a	 ?comprehensive	 ?image	 ?of	 ?the	 ?patient?s	 ?life.	 ?	 ?	 ? Another	 ?profession	 ?that	 ?traditionally	 ?specializes	 ?in	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?is	 ?psychology.	 ?	 ?Unlike	 ?psychiatry,	 ?psychology	 ?is	 ?not	 ?a	 ?medical	 ?specialty,	 ?but	 ?rather	 ?a	 ?separate	 ?field	 ?that	 ?specializes	 ?in	 ?the	 ?scientific	 ?study	 ?of	 ?behaviour	 ?(Passer	 ?&	 ?Smith,	 ?2001).	 ?	 ?As	 ?such,	 ?psychology	 ?is	 ?less	 ?interested	 ?in	 ?the	 ?diagnosis	 ?and	 ?treatment	 ?of	 ?mental	 ?disorders,	 ?and	 ?more	 ?likely	 ?to	 ?consider	 ?biological,	 ?psychological	 ?and	 ?environmental	 ?factors	 ?that	 ?interplay	 ?on	 ?human	 ?	 ? 13	 ?behaviour	 ?(Passer	 ?&	 ?Smith,	 ?2001).	 ?Nonetheless,	 ?like	 ?psychiatry,	 ?psychology	 ?too	 ?attempts	 ?to	 ?categorize	 ?human	 ?behaviour	 ?and	 ?is	 ?a	 ?proponent	 ?of	 ?the	 ?DSM	 ?(Passer	 ?&	 ?Smith,	 ?2001).	 ?	 ?It	 ?does	 ?so	 ?out	 ?of	 ?a	 ?belief	 ?in	 ?the	 ?necessity	 ?of	 ?classifying	 ?mental	 ?illnesses,	 ?seeing	 ?this	 ?an	 ?important	 ?step	 ?in	 ?generating	 ?discussion	 ?about	 ?the	 ?nature,	 ?causes	 ?and	 ?treatment	 ?of	 ?mental	 ?disorders	 ?(Passer	 ?&	 ?Smith,	 ?2001).	 ?	 ? Discussion	 ?about	 ?the	 ?biomedical	 ?approach	 ?to	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?would	 ?not	 ?be	 ?complete	 ?without	 ?recognition	 ?of	 ?scientific	 ?advances	 ?in	 ?the	 ?field	 ?of	 ?psychopharmacology	 ?and	 ?neuroscience.	 ?	 ?Today,	 ?a	 ?number	 ?of	 ?physiological	 ?contributors	 ?to	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?have	 ?been	 ?established,	 ?although	 ?emerging	 ?research	 ?is	 ?increasingly	 ?demonstrating	 ?that	 ?the	 ?physiology	 ?of	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?in	 ?much	 ?more	 ?complicated	 ?than	 ?previously	 ?assumed.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?It	 ?is	 ?commonly	 ?believed	 ?that	 ?knowledge	 ?about	 ?the	 ?neurochemical	 ?nature	 ?of	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?began	 ?to	 ?grow	 ?with	 ?the	 ?development	 ?of	 ?antipsychotic	 ?medication	 ?during	 ?the	 ?1950s.	 ?	 ?During	 ?this	 ?era	 ?major	 ?advances	 ?were	 ?made	 ?with	 ?the	 ?introduction	 ?of	 ?antipsychotics	 ?such	 ?as	 ?chlorpromazine	 ?and	 ?thoioxanthene,	 ?which	 ?diminished	 ?positive	 ?symptoms	 ?in	 ?schizophrenia,	 ?discussed	 ?below	 ?(Davison	 ?et	 ?al.,	 ?2004).	 ?	 ?This,	 ?along	 ?with	 ?emerging	 ?anti-??institutional	 ?attitudes,	 ?contributed	 ?to	 ?a	 ?widespread	 ?decline	 ?in	 ?the	 ?numbers	 ?of	 ?inpatients	 ?with	 ?severe	 ?mental	 ?illness,	 ?as	 ?it	 ?was	 ?believed	 ?that	 ?patients	 ?would	 ?be	 ?able	 ?to	 ?manage	 ?their	 ?symptoms	 ?while	 ?out	 ?in	 ?community	 ?(Passer	 ?&	 ?Smith,	 ?2001;	 ?Pescolido	 ?&	 ?Rubin,	 ?2000).	 ?	 ?Also	 ?contributing	 ?to	 ?this	 ?deinstitutionalization	 ?was	 ?the	 ?introduction	 ?of	 ?disability	 ?benefits	 ?in	 ?the	 ?U.S.	 ?in	 ?1955	 ?(Whitaker,	 ?2010),	 ?and	 ?the	 ?Canada	 ?Pension	 ?Plan	 ?Disability	 ?Benefit	 ?(CPPD)	 ?in	 ?1966	 ?(Hick,	 ?2007).	 ?	 ?These	 ?enhanced	 ?financial	 ?opportunities	 ?for	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness,	 ?allowing	 ?them	 ?to	 ?live	 ?independently	 ?even	 ?while	 ?their	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?prevented	 ?them	 ?from	 ?being	 ?able	 ?to	 ?work.	 ?	 ?Since	 ?then,	 ?the	 ?evolution	 ?of	 ?antipsychotic	 ?medication	 ?for	 ?the	 ?	 ? 14	 ?treatment	 ?of	 ?schizophrenia	 ?and	 ?other	 ?severe	 ?mental	 ?illnesses	 ?has	 ?continued	 ?to	 ?evolve.	 ?	 ?Today	 ?there	 ?is	 ?widespread	 ?consensus	 ?within	 ?the	 ?medical	 ?community	 ?that	 ?schizophrenia	 ?responds	 ?well	 ?to	 ?pharmaceutical	 ?treatment	 ?and	 ?the	 ?field	 ?of	 ?biomedicine	 ?is	 ?currently	 ?witnessing	 ?an	 ?influx	 ?of	 ?second-??generation	 ?antipsychotics	 ?that	 ?appear	 ?to	 ?be	 ?having	 ?a	 ?very	 ?positive	 ?impact	 ?(Davison	 ?et	 ?al.,	 ?2004;	 ?Kelly,	 ?Weiner,	 ?Bale,	 ?McMahon,	 ?Carpenter,	 ?&	 ?Buchanan,	 ?2009;	 ?Passer	 ?&	 ?Smith,	 ?2001).	 ?For	 ?example,	 ?in	 ?a	 ?study	 ?conducted	 ?by	 ?Kelly	 ?et	 ?al.,	 ?(2008)	 ?it	 ?was	 ?discovered	 ?that	 ?the	 ?drug	 ?olanzapine	 ?(a	 ?second	 ?generation	 ?antipsychotic)	 ?seems	 ?to	 ?improve	 ?cognitive	 ?functioning	 ?in	 ?patients	 ?with	 ?schizophrenia.	 ?	 ?	 ?Results	 ?demonstrated	 ?significant	 ?improvement	 ?in	 ?cognitive	 ?functioning	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?increase	 ?in	 ?self-??reported	 ?quality	 ?of	 ?life.	 ?	 ?Findings	 ?also	 ?revealed	 ?a	 ?decrease	 ?in	 ?extrapyramidal	 ?symptoms	 ?such	 ?as	 ?akinesia	 ?(difficulty	 ?initiating	 ?movement)	 ?and	 ?akathisia	 ?(difficulty	 ?suppressing	 ?constant	 ?movement),	 ?a	 ?motor	 ?side-??effect	 ?of	 ?chlorpromazine.	 ?	 ?They	 ?also	 ?revealed	 ?a	 ?return	 ?of	 ?practice	 ?effect,	 ?which	 ?had	 ?not	 ?been	 ?present	 ?while	 ?subjects	 ?were	 ?on	 ?chlorpromazine.	 ?	 ?The	 ?quality	 ?of	 ?life	 ?measure	 ?revealed	 ?increases	 ?in	 ?general	 ?health,	 ?vitality,	 ?social	 ?functioning,	 ?emotional	 ?role	 ?and	 ?overall	 ?mental	 ?health.	 ?	 ?	 ? A	 ?similar	 ?evolution	 ?has	 ?occurred	 ?with	 ?the	 ?neurochemical	 ?understanding	 ?of	 ?other	 ?mental	 ?illnesses,	 ?such	 ?as	 ?depression,	 ?also	 ?discussed	 ?below.	 ?	 ?Biomedical	 ?advances	 ?have	 ?led	 ?to	 ?the	 ?discovery	 ?of	 ?low	 ?serotonin	 ?activity	 ?in	 ?the	 ?synaptic	 ?cleft	 ?as	 ?causal	 ?to	 ?symptoms	 ?of	 ?depression	 ?(Passer	 ?&	 ?Smith,	 ?2001).	 ?	 ?Consequently	 ?depression	 ?is	 ?often	 ?treated	 ?using	 ?selective-??serotonin	 ?reuptake	 ?inhibitors	 ?(SSRI),	 ?and	 ?monoamine	 ?oxidase	 ?inhibitors	 ?(MOA?s),	 ?which	 ?regulate	 ?these	 ?neuro-??chemicals	 ?(Davison	 ?et	 ?al.,	 ?2004;	 ?Mash	 ?&	 ?Wolfe,	 ?2005).	 ?	 ?The	 ?neurotransmitter	 ?serotonin	 ?has	 ?also	 ?been	 ?linked	 ?to	 ?eating	 ?disorders,	 ?sleep	 ?disorders,	 ?	 ? 15	 ?obsessive-??compulsive	 ?disorder,	 ?schizophrenia	 ?and	 ?other	 ?mood	 ?disorders	 ?including	 ?anxiety	 ?(Canadian	 ?Mental	 ?Health	 ?Association	 ?(CMHA),	 ?2013;	 ?Mash	 ?&	 ?Wolfe,	 ?2005).	 ?	 ? Despite	 ?evidence	 ?supporting	 ?a	 ?neurochemical	 ?basis	 ?for	 ?mental	 ?illness,	 ?some	 ?contemporary	 ?research	 ?is	 ?questioning	 ?an	 ?over-??zealous	 ?reliance	 ?on	 ?medication.	 ?	 ?In	 ?his	 ?book	 ?Anatomy	 ?of	 ?an	 ?Epidemic,	 ?Robert	 ?Whitaker	 ?(2010)	 ?claims	 ?that	 ?in	 ?spite	 ?of	 ?scientific	 ?advancement	 ?in	 ?this	 ?area,	 ?rates	 ?of	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?in	 ?the	 ?U.S.	 ?have	 ?boomed	 ?since	 ?the	 ?development	 ?of	 ?antipsychotic	 ?medication.	 ?	 ?His	 ?research	 ?shows	 ?that	 ?the	 ?number	 ?of	 ?people	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?on	 ?disability	 ?in	 ?2007	 ?was	 ?1	 ?in	 ?76,	 ?which	 ?was	 ?twice	 ?as	 ?many	 ?as	 ?in	 ?1987	 ?and	 ?six	 ?times	 ?as	 ?many	 ?as	 ?in	 ?1955	 ?when	 ?these	 ?services	 ?were	 ?first	 ?introduced	 ?in	 ?the	 ?US.	 ?	 ?Additionally,	 ?he	 ?argues	 ?that	 ?rates	 ?of	 ?depression	 ?and	 ?bipolar	 ?disorder	 ?have	 ?increased	 ?dramatically	 ?since	 ?the	 ?1990s,	 ?which	 ?coincides	 ?with	 ?the	 ?development	 ?of	 ?Prozac	 ?in	 ?1987.	 ?	 ?Furthermore,	 ?Whitaker?s	 ?(2010)	 ?research	 ?shows	 ?that	 ?up	 ?to	 ?75%	 ?of	 ?patients	 ?with	 ?schizophrenia	 ?were	 ?recovering	 ?and	 ?being	 ?discharged	 ?from	 ?psychiatric	 ?hospitals	 ?before	 ?antipsychotic	 ?medication	 ?was	 ?even	 ?introduced.	 ?	 ?Only	 ?20%	 ?were	 ?in	 ?need	 ?of	 ?long-??term	 ?hospitalization.	 ?	 ?Consequently	 ?he	 ?opposes	 ?the	 ?belief	 ?that	 ?antipsychotic	 ?medication	 ?revolutionized	 ?the	 ?treatment	 ?of	 ?mental	 ?illness,	 ?since	 ?his	 ?data	 ?implies	 ?that	 ?recovery	 ?rates	 ?were	 ?already	 ?quite	 ?high	 ?to	 ?begin	 ?with.	 ?	 ?Though	 ?he	 ?generally	 ?supports	 ?the	 ?use	 ?of	 ?pharmaceuticals,	 ?he	 ?cautions	 ?against	 ?their	 ?long-??term	 ?use	 ?and	 ?disagrees	 ?that	 ?second	 ?generation	 ?antipsychotics	 ?are	 ?having	 ?a	 ?more	 ?positive	 ?impact	 ?than	 ?their	 ?predecessors.	 ?	 ?He	 ?points	 ?out	 ?that	 ?side	 ?effects	 ?are	 ?severe,	 ?and	 ?that	 ?long-??term	 ?use	 ?of	 ?such	 ?drugs	 ?can	 ?be	 ?harmful	 ?to	 ?normal	 ?brain	 ?functioning.	 ?	 ?Additionally,	 ?he	 ?strongly	 ?argues	 ?that	 ?many	 ?other	 ?variables,	 ?such	 ?as	 ?a	 ?healthier	 ?lifestyle	 ?and	 ?increased	 ?exercise,	 ?can	 ?lead	 ?to	 ?recovery	 ?from	 ?mental	 ?illness.	 ?	 ?As	 ?a	 ?result,	 ?he	 ?asserts	 ?that	 ?pharmacological	 ?treatment	 ?is	 ?not	 ?the	 ?only	 ?answer.	 ?	 ? 16	 ?	 ? A	 ?2002	 ?study	 ?by	 ?Kirsch,	 ?Moore,	 ?Scoboria	 ?and	 ?Nicholls	 ?appears	 ?to	 ?support	 ?Whitaker?s	 ?stance.	 ?	 ?Results	 ?of	 ?this	 ?study	 ?revealed	 ?that	 ?80%	 ?of	 ?response	 ?to	 ?antidepressant	 ?medication	 ?was	 ?replicated	 ?in	 ?a	 ?placebo	 ?control	 ?group,	 ?suggesting	 ?that	 ?much	 ?of	 ?the	 ?success	 ?attributed	 ?to	 ?antidepressants	 ?may	 ?actually	 ?be	 ?the	 ?result	 ?of	 ?a	 ?placebo	 ?effect.	 ?	 ?Furthermore,	 ?findings	 ?also	 ?revealed	 ?that	 ?improvement	 ?levels	 ?were	 ?the	 ?same	 ?regardless	 ?of	 ?dosage,	 ?demonstrating	 ?that	 ?the	 ?amount	 ?of	 ?antidepressant	 ?that	 ?a	 ?participant	 ?received	 ?did	 ?not	 ?appear	 ?to	 ?affect	 ?recovery.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?Physiological	 ?explanations	 ?for	 ?mental	 ?disorders,	 ?along	 ?with	 ?a	 ?desire	 ?to	 ?categorize	 ?and	 ?classify	 ?them,	 ?have	 ?generated	 ?the	 ?development	 ?of	 ?diagnostic	 ?manuals	 ?such	 ?as	 ?the	 ?DSM	 ?and	 ?the	 ?International	 ?Classification	 ?of	 ?Disease	 ?(ICD).	 ?	 ?These	 ?manuals,	 ?first	 ?created	 ?in	 ?the	 ?1950s	 ?(APA,	 ?2012;	 ?Drescher,	 ?2010)	 ?attempt	 ?to	 ?provide	 ?definitions	 ?of	 ?mental	 ?disorders,	 ?and	 ?compartmentalize	 ?symptoms	 ?into	 ?groups	 ?or	 ?clusters	 ?(Davison	 ?et	 ?al.,2004;	 ?Passer	 ?&	 ?Smith,	 ?2001).	 ?	 ?Although	 ?the	 ?DSM	 ?and	 ?ICD	 ?recognize	 ?numerous	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?diagnoses,	 ?perhaps	 ?the	 ?greatest	 ?attention	 ?is	 ?often	 ?given	 ?to	 ?disorders	 ?that	 ?qualify	 ?as	 ?serious	 ?and	 ?persistent.	 ?	 ?There	 ?is	 ?some	 ?disagreement	 ?about	 ?which	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?diagnoses	 ?should	 ?be	 ?included	 ?in	 ?the	 ?serious	 ?and	 ?persistent	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?category;	 ?however	 ?most	 ?experts	 ?agree	 ?that	 ?thought	 ?disorders,	 ?mood	 ?disorders	 ?and	 ?personality	 ?disorders	 ?such	 ?as	 ?schizophrenia,	 ?severe	 ?depression,	 ?bipolar	 ?disorder	 ?and	 ?borderline	 ?personality	 ?disorder	 ?warrant	 ?such	 ?inclusion	 ?(Bednar,	 ?n.d.;	 ?Estroff,	 ?Lachicotte,	 ?Illingworth,	 ?&	 ?Johnston,	 ?1991).	 ?	 ?These	 ?diagnostic	 ?entities	 ?are	 ?briefly	 ?discussed	 ?below.	 ?	 ?Schizophrenia.	 ?	 ?Schizophrenia	 ?is	 ?perhaps	 ?one	 ?of	 ?the	 ?most	 ?commonly	 ?occurring	 ?thought	 ?disorders	 ?in	 ?Canada	 ?(Public	 ?Health	 ?Agency	 ?of	 ?Canada,	 ?2012).	 ?	 ?It	 ?affects	 ?approximately	 ?1%	 ?of	 ?the	 ?Canadian	 ?population	 ?(Health	 ?Canada,	 ?2002;	 ?Public	 ?Health	 ?Agency	 ?of	 ?Canada,	 ?2012)	 ?and	 ?is	 ?equally	 ?prevalent	 ?in	 ?men	 ?and	 ?women	 ?(Davison	 ?et	 ?al.,	 ?2004).	 ?The	 ?	 ? 17	 ?onset	 ?of	 ?schizophrenia	 ?generally	 ?occurs	 ?in	 ?late	 ?adolescence	 ?or	 ?early	 ?adulthood,	 ?and	 ?it	 ?can	 ?persist	 ?as	 ?a	 ?chronic	 ?condition	 ?throughout	 ?the	 ?individual?s	 ?life	 ?(Davison	 ?et	 ?al.,	 ?2004).	 ?	 ?It	 ?can	 ?also	 ?be	 ?diagnosed	 ?during	 ?childhood	 ?as	 ?childhood-??onset	 ?schizophrenia	 ?(Mash	 ?&	 ?Wolfe,	 ?2005).	 ?	 ?	 ?Schizophrenia	 ?is	 ?most	 ?commonly	 ?characterized	 ?by	 ?disturbances	 ?in	 ?thought,	 ?emotion	 ?and	 ?behaviour	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?withdrawal	 ?from	 ?reality	 ?(Davison	 ?et	 ?al.,	 ?2004;	 ?Mash	 ?&	 ?Wolfe,	 ?2005;	 ?Passer	 ?&	 ?Smith,	 ?2001).	 ?	 ?Individuals	 ?with	 ?this	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?often	 ?become	 ?governed	 ?by	 ?their	 ?hallucinations	 ?and	 ?delusions	 ?and	 ?struggle	 ?with	 ?social	 ?interaction	 ?and	 ?general	 ?life	 ?functioning	 ?(Davison	 ?et	 ?al.,	 ?2004;	 ?Mash	 ?&	 ?Wolfe,	 ?2005;	 ?Passer	 ?&	 ?Smith,	 ?2001).	 ?	 ?Symptoms	 ?can	 ?also	 ?cause	 ?difficulties	 ?with	 ?thinking	 ?clearly,	 ?following	 ?direction,	 ?acquiring	 ?new	 ?information	 ?and	 ?developing	 ?new	 ?skills	 ?(Stratta,	 ?Donda,	 ?Rossi,	 ?&	 ?Rossi,	 ?2005).	 ?	 ?Furthermore	 ?it	 ?is	 ?also	 ?believed	 ?that	 ?schizophrenia	 ?contributes	 ?to	 ?the	 ?development	 ?of	 ?a	 ?neurocognitive	 ?impairment,	 ?which	 ?in	 ?turn	 ?can	 ?have	 ?a	 ?severe	 ?impact	 ?on	 ?the	 ?individual?s	 ?ability	 ?to	 ?maintain	 ?an	 ?independent	 ?life	 ?(Stratta	 ?et	 ?al.,	 ?2005).	 ?	 ?A	 ?symptom	 ?of	 ?schizophrenia	 ?that	 ?can	 ?be	 ?particularly	 ?debilitating	 ?is	 ?psychosis.	 ?	 ?Psychosis	 ?is	 ?characterized	 ?by	 ?an	 ?onset	 ?of	 ?odd	 ?beliefs,	 ?altered	 ?perceptions,	 ?distressing	 ?emotions,	 ?including	 ?heightened	 ?anxiety	 ?and	 ?sensory	 ?perception,	 ?(Kapur,	 ?2003)	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?an	 ?overall	 ?loss	 ?of	 ?contact	 ?with	 ?reality	 ?(Fraser	 ?Health,	 ?2013).	 ?	 ?According	 ?to	 ?Fraser	 ?Health	 ?(2013),	 ?3%	 ?of	 ?the	 ?population	 ?can	 ?expect	 ?to	 ?experience	 ?at	 ?least	 ?one	 ?episode	 ?of	 ?psychosis	 ?during	 ?their	 ?lifetime.	 ?	 ?Although	 ?most	 ?commonly	 ?associated	 ?with	 ?schizophrenia,	 ?psychosis	 ?has	 ?also	 ?been	 ?known	 ?to	 ?occur	 ?in	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?mania	 ?or	 ?those	 ?who	 ?have	 ?experienced	 ?chronic	 ?use	 ?of	 ?amphetamines	 ?(Kapur,	 ?2003).	 ?	 ?Its	 ?onset	 ?is	 ?rarely	 ?sudden,	 ?and	 ?is	 ?generally	 ?believed	 ?to	 ?progress	 ?gradually	 ?in	 ?stages	 ?(Fraser	 ?Health,	 ?2013;	 ?Kapur,	 ?2003).	 ?	 ?Psychosis	 ?is	 ?also	 ?usually	 ?recurring	 ?(Kapur,	 ?2003).	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? 18	 ?Although	 ?some	 ?would	 ?disagree	 ?(Foussias	 ?&	 ?Remington,	 ?2010;	 ?Whitaker,	 ?2010),	 ?many	 ?experts	 ?believe	 ?that	 ?treatment	 ?of	 ?schizophrenia	 ?has	 ?seen	 ?major	 ?advancement	 ?since	 ?the	 ?creation	 ?of	 ?first	 ?generation	 ?antipsychotics	 ?in	 ?the	 ?1950s	 ?(Davison	 ?et	 ?al.,	 ?2004).	 ?	 ?Today,	 ?the	 ?use	 ?of	 ?antipsychotic	 ?medication	 ?continues.	 ?	 ?Many	 ?believe	 ?that	 ?pharmaceutical	 ?treatment	 ?has	 ?progressed	 ?and	 ?witnessed	 ?increasing	 ?success	 ?with	 ?regards	 ?to	 ?symptom	 ?management	 ?(Davison	 ?et	 ?al.,	 ?2004;	 ?Kelly	 ?et	 ?al.,	 ?2009;	 ?Mash	 ?&	 ?Wolfe,	 ?2005).	 ?	 ?	 ?Treatment	 ?is	 ?especially	 ?necessary	 ?for	 ?psychosis.	 ?	 ?Though	 ?science	 ?is	 ?continuously	 ?studying	 ?the	 ?biochemical	 ?nature	 ?of	 ?this	 ?symptom,	 ?antipsychotic	 ?medication,	 ?which	 ?regulates	 ?dopamine	 ?levels	 ?in	 ?the	 ?brain,	 ?appears	 ?most	 ?effective	 ?at	 ?this	 ?time	 ?(Fraser	 ?Health,	 ?2013;	 ?Kapur,	 ?2003).	 ?	 ?This	 ?is	 ?especially	 ?true	 ?when	 ?provided	 ?in	 ?combination	 ?with	 ?psychotherapy	 ?(Kapur,	 ?2003).	 ?	 ?As	 ?a	 ?result,	 ?Fraser	 ?Health?s	 ?(2013)	 ?Early	 ?Psychosis	 ?Intervention	 ?Program	 ?(EPI)	 ?asserts	 ?that	 ?psychosis	 ?is	 ?treatable,	 ?and	 ?that	 ?recovery	 ?is	 ?expected.	 ?There	 ?is	 ?some	 ?indication	 ?that	 ?Whitaker	 ?(2010)	 ?is	 ?valid	 ?in	 ?believing	 ?that	 ?second-??generation	 ?antipsychotics	 ?are	 ?no	 ?more	 ?effective	 ?in	 ?treating	 ?schizophrenia	 ?than	 ?those	 ?developed	 ?in	 ?the	 ?1950s.	 ?	 ?A	 ?study	 ?conducted	 ?by	 ?Foussias	 ?&	 ?Remington	 ?(2010)	 ?detected	 ?no	 ?difference	 ?in	 ?effectiveness	 ?between	 ?first-??generation	 ?and	 ?second-??generation	 ?antipsychotics,	 ?giving	 ?reason	 ?to	 ?contest	 ?the	 ?notion	 ?that	 ?second-??generation	 ?antipsychotics	 ?are	 ?superior	 ?to	 ?first-??generation	 ?ones.	 ?	 ?	 ?Mood	 ?disorders.	 ?	 ?Mood	 ?disorders	 ?are	 ?characterized	 ?by	 ?the	 ?presence	 ?of	 ?disabling	 ?mood	 ?fluctuations,	 ?such	 ?as	 ?extreme	 ?sadness	 ?or	 ?total	 ?elation	 ?and	 ?euphoria	 ?(Davison	 ?et	 ?al.,	 ?2004;	 ?Passer	 ?&	 ?Smith,	 ?2001).	 ?	 ?These	 ?emotional	 ?experiences	 ?are	 ?generally	 ?very	 ?intense	 ?and	 ?exaggerated,	 ?and	 ?can	 ?therefore	 ?powerfully	 ?impact	 ?the	 ?individual?s	 ?physical	 ?health,	 ?mental	 ?	 ? 19	 ?wellness	 ?and	 ?behaviour	 ?(CMHA,	 ?2012).	 ?	 ?Mood	 ?disorders	 ?are	 ?quite	 ?common,	 ?thought	 ?to	 ?occur	 ?in	 ?approximately	 ?10%	 ?of	 ?Canadians	 ?(CMHA,	 ?2012).	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?Two	 ?of	 ?the	 ?most	 ?commonly	 ?occurring	 ?mood	 ?disorders	 ?are	 ?bipolar	 ?disorder	 ?and	 ?severe	 ?depression,	 ?occurring	 ?in	 ?1%	 ?and	 ?8	 ?%	 ?of	 ?the	 ?population,	 ?respectively	 ?(CMHA,	 ?2012;	 ?Health	 ?Canada,	 ?2002)	 ?	 ?Mood	 ?disorders	 ?are	 ?commonly	 ?treated	 ?using	 ?a	 ?bio-??psycho-??social	 ?approach,	 ?which	 ?combines	 ?the	 ?use	 ?of	 ?pharmaceuticals	 ?with	 ?counseling	 ?therapy.	 ?	 ?Perhaps	 ?one	 ?of	 ?the	 ?most	 ?popular	 ?psychological	 ?treatments	 ?of	 ?mood	 ?disorders	 ?is	 ?the	 ?cognitive-??behavioural	 ?approach	 ?(CBT).	 ?	 ?Therapists	 ?using	 ?CBT	 ?focus	 ?on	 ?the	 ?modification	 ?of	 ?behaviour	 ?through	 ?the	 ?alteration	 ?of	 ?cognitions	 ?(Davison	 ?et	 ?al.,	 ?2004).	 ?	 ?The	 ?combination	 ?of	 ?antidepressant	 ?therapy	 ?with	 ?psychological	 ?counseling	 ?remains	 ?best	 ?practice.	 ?Siddique,	 ?Brown,	 ?Chung	 ?and	 ?Miranda	 ?(2012)	 ?found	 ?that	 ?patients	 ?with	 ?depression	 ?who	 ?received	 ?CBT	 ?fared	 ?better	 ?and	 ?had	 ?longer	 ?lasting	 ?effects	 ?than	 ?patients	 ?who	 ?were	 ?treated	 ?with	 ?medication	 ?alone.	 ?	 ?Overall,	 ?their	 ?results	 ?demonstrated	 ?that	 ?patients	 ?who	 ?received	 ?CBT	 ?treatment	 ?were	 ?less	 ?likely	 ?to	 ?relapse	 ?over	 ?the	 ?following	 ?year,	 ?possibly	 ?due	 ?to	 ?having	 ?learned	 ?a	 ?set	 ?of	 ?adaptive	 ?coping	 ?skills	 ?that	 ?helped	 ?them	 ?maintain	 ?their	 ?mental	 ?health.	 ?	 ?	 ?Personality	 ?disorders.	 ?	 ?Diagnoses	 ?that	 ?fall	 ?under	 ?the	 ?category	 ?of	 ?personality	 ?disorders	 ?are	 ?characterized	 ?by	 ?behaviour	 ?patterns	 ?that	 ?deviate	 ?from	 ?what	 ?would	 ?be	 ?considered	 ?the	 ?norm,	 ?in	 ?light	 ?of	 ?societal	 ?expectations.	 ?	 ?These	 ?behaviour	 ?patterns	 ?are	 ?generally	 ?static,	 ?inflexible	 ?and	 ?extreme,	 ?and	 ?can	 ?make	 ?it	 ?difficult	 ?for	 ?individuals	 ?to	 ?adapt	 ?to	 ?the	 ?world	 ?around	 ?them	 ?(CMHA,	 ?2004;	 ?Davison	 ?et	 ?al.,	 ?2004;	 ?Passer	 ?&Smith,	 ?2001	 ?).	 ?	 ?A	 ?report	 ?by	 ?Health	 ?Canada	 ?(2002)	 ?claims	 ?that	 ?Canadian	 ?statistics	 ?on	 ?personality	 ?disorders	 ?are	 ?lacking,	 ?but	 ?that	 ?US	 ?statistics	 ?point	 ?to	 ?a	 ?prevalence	 ?that	 ?may	 ?be	 ?as	 ?high	 ?as	 ?6%-??9%.	 ?	 ?Although	 ?the	 ?same	 ?report	 ?notes	 ?that	 ?as	 ?many	 ?as	 ?50%of	 ?prisoners	 ?may	 ?have	 ?anti-??social	 ?	 ? 20	 ?personality	 ?disorder,	 ?one	 ?of	 ?the	 ?more	 ?commonly	 ?occurring	 ?personality	 ?disorders	 ?in	 ?the	 ?general	 ?public	 ?is	 ?borderline	 ?personality	 ?disorder	 ?(BPD),	 ?which	 ?has	 ?a	 ?prevalence	 ?of	 ?1%	 ?(Davison	 ?et	 ?al.,	 ?2004).	 ?	 ?Perhaps	 ?one	 ?of	 ?the	 ?best-??known	 ?treatments	 ?for	 ?BPD	 ?is	 ?dialectic	 ?behaviour	 ?therapy	 ?(DBT).	 ?	 ?Like	 ?CBT,	 ?DBT	 ?is	 ?also	 ?a	 ?cognitive-??behavioural	 ?approach,	 ?which	 ?focuses	 ?on	 ?the	 ?alteration	 ?of	 ?maladaptive	 ?thinking	 ?patterns.	 ?	 ?It	 ?was	 ?developed	 ?by	 ?Marsha	 ?Linehan	 ?specifically	 ?for	 ?the	 ?treatment	 ?of	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?BPD,	 ?and	 ?is	 ?widely	 ?supported	 ?by	 ?empirical	 ?evidence	 ?(Rivvi,	 ?Stefferl,	 ?Carson-??Wong,	 ?2012).	 ?	 ?DBT	 ?combines	 ?biological,	 ?psychological,	 ?environmental,	 ?sociological	 ?and	 ?behavioural	 ?approaches	 ?to	 ?treatment,	 ?introducing	 ?a	 ?more	 ?holistic	 ?approach.	 ?	 ?This	 ?brief	 ?review	 ?of	 ?biomedical	 ?understandings	 ?of	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?is	 ?presented	 ?in	 ?contrast	 ?to	 ?a	 ?social	 ?constructivist	 ?one,	 ?to	 ?which	 ?this	 ?paper	 ?now	 ?turns.	 ?The	 ?social	 ?constructionist	 ?approach.	 ?	 ?A	 ?social	 ?constructionist	 ?approach	 ?takes	 ?the	 ?stance	 ?that	 ?when	 ?discussing	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?it	 ?is	 ?impossible	 ?to	 ?ignore	 ?its	 ?connectedness	 ?to	 ?abnormal	 ?behaviour,	 ?and	 ?the	 ?subjectivity	 ?of	 ?determining	 ?what	 ?behaviour	 ?warrants	 ?such	 ?a	 ?label.	 ?	 ?This	 ?approach	 ?assumes	 ?that	 ?knowledge,	 ?including	 ?knowledge	 ?about	 ?one?s	 ?reality,	 ?is	 ?socially	 ?constructed.	 ?	 ?As	 ?such,	 ?it	 ?opposes	 ?the	 ?position	 ?that	 ?knowledge	 ?is	 ?a	 ?static,	 ?tangible	 ?and	 ?naturally	 ?existing	 ?object.	 ?	 ?Relating	 ?to	 ?mental	 ?illness,	 ?it	 ?fundamentally	 ?rejects	 ?the	 ?notion	 ?that	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?exists	 ?as	 ?a	 ?condition	 ?in	 ?and	 ?of	 ?itself	 ?(Coulter,	 ?2001).	 ?	 ?Rather	 ?it	 ?sees	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?as	 ?an	 ?object	 ?or	 ?phenomenon	 ?that	 ?is	 ?produced	 ?by	 ?the	 ?social	 ?world	 ?in	 ?which	 ?it	 ?exists.	 ?	 ?	 ?Jeff	 ?Coulter	 ?(20010)	 ?explains	 ?that	 ?social	 ?constructionism	 ?relates	 ?to	 ?the	 ?construction	 ?of	 ?beliefs,	 ?not	 ?just	 ?facts	 ?about	 ?the	 ?world.	 ?	 ?This	 ?explains	 ?why	 ?definitions	 ?of	 ?normal	 ?and	 ?	 ? 21	 ?abnormal	 ?behaviour	 ?vary	 ?across	 ?cultures	 ?and	 ?societies,	 ?and	 ?why	 ?they	 ?have	 ?changed	 ?over	 ?time.	 ?	 ?He	 ?also	 ?describes	 ?social	 ?constructionism	 ?as	 ?closely	 ?associated	 ?with	 ?labeling	 ?theory,	 ?which	 ?maintains	 ?that	 ?society	 ?places	 ?labels	 ?on	 ?individuals	 ?whose	 ?behaviours	 ?it	 ?considers	 ?deviant	 ?or	 ?outside	 ?the	 ?range	 ?of	 ?standard	 ?cultural	 ?norms	 ?(Scheff,	 ?1974).	 ?	 ?These	 ?labels	 ?can	 ?persist	 ?throughout	 ?an	 ?individual?s	 ?life,	 ?often	 ?manifesting	 ?as	 ?stigma	 ?and	 ?stereotype	 ?(Scheff,	 ?1974).	 ?	 ?When	 ?viewing	 ?disability	 ?through	 ?this	 ?lens,	 ?one	 ?must	 ?accept	 ?the	 ?position	 ?that	 ?disability	 ?exists	 ?only	 ?as	 ?long	 ?as	 ?society	 ??maintains	 ?barriers	 ?to	 ?full	 ?participation	 ?of	 ?people	 ?who	 ?are	 ?physically	 ?or	 ?mentally	 ?different?	 ?(Hick,	 ?2007,	 ?p.313).	 ?	 ?Consequently,	 ?it	 ?is	 ?through	 ?changes	 ?in	 ?society,	 ?not	 ?in	 ?the	 ?individual,	 ?that	 ?barriers	 ?and	 ?disadvantages	 ?can	 ?be	 ?altered	 ?or	 ?removed.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?Three	 ?psychologists,	 ?Davison,	 ?Neale	 ?and	 ?Kring	 ?(2004)	 ?claim	 ?that	 ?abnormal	 ?behaviour	 ?can	 ?be	 ?assessed	 ?when	 ?there	 ?is	 ?deviation	 ?from	 ?the	 ?norm	 ?on	 ?matters	 ?such	 ?as	 ?conformity	 ?to	 ?societal	 ?norms,	 ?levels	 ?of	 ?emotional	 ?distress,	 ?existence	 ?of	 ?disability	 ?and	 ?behavioural	 ?dysfunction,	 ?and	 ?unexpected	 ?behavioural	 ?responses	 ?that	 ?are	 ?outside	 ?of	 ?what	 ?would	 ?be	 ?expected	 ?under	 ?given	 ?circumstance.	 ?	 ?The	 ?last	 ?point,	 ?labeled	 ?by	 ?the	 ?authors	 ?as	 ??unexpectedness?,	 ?refers	 ?to	 ?a	 ?behavioural	 ?or	 ?emotional	 ?response	 ?that	 ?is	 ?incongruent	 ?with	 ?a	 ?given	 ?environmental	 ?stressor.	 ?	 ?For	 ?example,	 ?when	 ?an	 ?individual	 ?who	 ?is	 ?financially	 ?stable	 ?worries	 ?incessantly	 ?about	 ?his	 ?or	 ?her	 ?financial	 ?situation	 ?(p.5).	 ?	 ?This	 ?definition	 ?assumes	 ?that	 ?abnormality	 ?can	 ?be	 ?determined	 ?when	 ?a	 ?behaviour	 ?is	 ?statistically	 ?outside	 ?the	 ?range	 ?of	 ?what	 ?would	 ?be	 ?considered	 ?normal.	 ?	 ?In	 ?other	 ?words,	 ?a	 ?behaviour	 ?becomes	 ?abnormal	 ?when	 ?the	 ?majority	 ?does	 ?not	 ?exhibit	 ?it.	 ?	 ?	 ?Though	 ?taking	 ?a	 ?statistical	 ?approach	 ?to	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?rather	 ?than	 ?a	 ?social	 ?constructionist	 ?one,	 ?this	 ?definition	 ?of	 ?abnormal	 ?behaviour	 ?cannot	 ?depart	 ?from	 ?defining	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?as	 ?a	 ?product	 ?of	 ?biological,	 ?sociological,	 ?environmental	 ?and	 ?	 ? 22	 ?psychological	 ?factors.	 ?	 ?As	 ?a	 ?result,	 ?it	 ?is	 ?easy	 ?to	 ?speculate	 ?that	 ?the	 ?assessment	 ?of	 ?what	 ?constitutes	 ?abnormal	 ?behaviour	 ?is	 ?vague,	 ?subjective	 ?and	 ?culturally	 ?diverse.	 ?	 ?	 ?Passer	 ?and	 ?Smith	 ?(2001)	 ?support	 ?this	 ?view,	 ?stating	 ?that	 ??judgments	 ?about	 ?where	 ?the	 ?line	 ?between	 ?normal	 ?and	 ?abnormal	 ?should	 ?be	 ?drawn	 ?differ	 ?depending	 ?on	 ?the	 ?time	 ?and	 ?culture?	 ?(p.589),	 ?and	 ?that	 ?definitions	 ?of	 ?abnormality	 ?are	 ?influenced	 ?by	 ?values	 ?and	 ?political	 ?agendas.	 ?	 ?Consequently,	 ?they	 ?support	 ?the	 ?perspective	 ?that	 ??abnormality	 ?is,	 ?in	 ?the	 ?final	 ?analysis,	 ?a	 ?social	 ?construction?	 ?(p.589).	 ?	 ?Nonetheless,	 ?where	 ?abnormality	 ?and	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?intersect	 ?is	 ?another	 ?issue,	 ?and	 ?in	 ?this	 ?case,	 ?Passer	 ?and	 ?Smith	 ?(2001)	 ?provide	 ?a	 ?similar	 ?explanation	 ?to	 ?that	 ?of	 ?Davison	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?(2004).	 ?	 ?They	 ?claim	 ?that	 ?abnormal	 ?behaviour	 ?exists	 ?and	 ?warrants	 ?inclusion	 ?as	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?when	 ?the	 ?behaviour	 ?is	 ?dysfunctional	 ?(either	 ?for	 ?the	 ?individual	 ?or	 ?society),	 ?distressing	 ?and	 ?deviant.	 ?	 ?Deviance,	 ?a	 ?contestable	 ?and	 ?arbitrary	 ?construct,	 ?is	 ?perhaps	 ?the	 ?most	 ?subjective	 ?of	 ?the	 ?three,	 ?as	 ?it	 ?is	 ?governed	 ?by	 ?social	 ?norms	 ?and	 ?values	 ?that	 ?dictate	 ?how	 ?individuals	 ?within	 ?a	 ?society	 ?should	 ?behave.	 ?	 ?As	 ?such,	 ?Passer	 ?&	 ?Smith	 ?(2001)	 ?subjectively	 ?define	 ?deviant	 ?behavior	 ?as	 ?a	 ?mannerism	 ?that	 ?is	 ??so	 ?culturally	 ?deviant	 ?that	 ?other	 ?people	 ?judge	 ?it	 ?to	 ?be	 ?inappropriate	 ?or	 ?maladaptive?	 ?(p.590).	 ?	 ?Since	 ?definitions	 ?of	 ?abnormal	 ?behaviour	 ?appear	 ?to	 ?be	 ?reliant	 ?on	 ?cultural	 ?norms	 ?and	 ?values,	 ?the	 ?interplay	 ?between	 ?them	 ?and	 ?the	 ?sociopolitical	 ?environment	 ?cannot	 ?be	 ?overlooked.	 ?	 ?Fee	 ?(2000)	 ?describes	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?as	 ?a	 ?social	 ?object,	 ?and	 ?questions	 ?those	 ?who	 ?assume	 ?that	 ?mental	 ?illnesses	 ?is	 ?something	 ?that	 ?is	 ?	 ??simply	 ?out	 ?(or	 ?in)	 ?there?	 ?(p.2).	 ?	 ?He	 ?traces	 ?these	 ?assumptions	 ?back	 ?to	 ?the	 ?Enlightenment,	 ?arguing	 ?that	 ?it	 ?was	 ?during	 ?this	 ?time	 ?that	 ?mental	 ?disorders	 ?began	 ?to	 ?be	 ?conceptualized	 ?as	 ?alien	 ?and	 ?irrational	 ?sicknesses,	 ?which	 ?existed	 ?in	 ?and	 ?of	 ?themselves,	 ?and	 ?could	 ?only	 ?be	 ?rectified	 ?through	 ?scientific	 ?intervention	 ?and	 ?treatment.	 ?	 ?	 ?He	 ?disagrees	 ?with	 ?such	 ?a	 ?view,	 ?and	 ?strongly	 ?argues	 ?that	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?cannot	 ?	 ? 23	 ?exist	 ?independent	 ?of	 ?the	 ?larger	 ?context	 ?of	 ?history,	 ?politics	 ?and	 ?culture,	 ?despite	 ?scientific	 ?evidence	 ?of	 ?its	 ?neurochemical	 ?origins.	 ?	 ?Instead	 ?he	 ?claims	 ?that	 ?mental	 ?pathology	 ?is	 ?both	 ?a	 ?socio-??historical	 ?and	 ?linguistic	 ?construction,	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?a	 ?real	 ?debilitating	 ?condition	 ?with	 ?physiological	 ?underpinnings.	 ?	 ?Pescosolido	 ?and	 ?Rubin	 ?(2000)	 ?also	 ?share	 ?this	 ?perspective,	 ?stating	 ?that	 ?one	 ?must	 ?acknowledge	 ?and	 ?assess	 ?the	 ?influences	 ?of	 ?macro	 ?systems	 ?on	 ?micro-??level	 ?experiences,	 ?since	 ?the	 ?two	 ?do	 ?not,	 ?and	 ?perhaps	 ?cannot,	 ?live	 ?in	 ?exclusion	 ?of	 ?one	 ?another.	 ?	 ? Foucault,	 ?in	 ?his	 ?book	 ?Madness	 ?and	 ?Civilization	 ?(1965),	 ?discussed	 ?the	 ?connection	 ?between	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?and	 ?society.	 ?	 ?His	 ?argument	 ?portrays	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?as	 ?engaged	 ?in	 ?a	 ?symbiotic	 ?relationship	 ?with	 ?society,	 ?characterized	 ?as	 ?fluid,	 ?ever-??changing,	 ?and	 ?dependant	 ?on	 ?societal	 ?norms	 ?and	 ?expectations.	 ?	 ?Foucault	 ?travels	 ?through	 ?time,	 ?and	 ?reveals	 ?how	 ?shifts	 ?in	 ?ideologies,	 ?politics	 ?and	 ?definitions	 ?of	 ?what	 ?it	 ?means	 ?to	 ?be	 ?human	 ?conceptualized	 ?how	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?were	 ?treated,	 ?and	 ?how	 ?unusual	 ?behaviour	 ?was	 ?defined.	 ?	 ?He	 ?describes	 ?a	 ?sort	 ?of	 ?evolution	 ?that	 ?commences	 ?with	 ?a	 ?religiously	 ?driven	 ?approach,	 ?which	 ?demonized	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?and	 ?aroused	 ?fear	 ?of	 ?death,	 ?to	 ?a	 ?more	 ?complex	 ?analysis	 ?of	 ?the	 ?duality	 ?of	 ?body	 ?and	 ?soul,	 ?and	 ?analysis	 ?of	 ?wakefulness	 ?and	 ?dreaming.	 ?	 ?He	 ?also	 ?pays	 ?heed	 ?to	 ?shifts	 ?in	 ?power,	 ?and	 ?how	 ?these	 ?influenced	 ?society	 ?on	 ?the	 ?whole.	 ?	 ?He	 ?describes	 ?the	 ?power	 ?of	 ?the	 ?church,	 ?and	 ?the	 ?subsequent	 ?power	 ?of	 ?science	 ?and	 ?morality	 ?in	 ?the	 ?post-??Enlightenment	 ?era.	 ?	 ?He	 ?also	 ?speaks	 ?of	 ?Freud,	 ?and	 ?argues	 ?that	 ?psychoanalysis	 ?and	 ?its	 ?ability	 ?to	 ?engage	 ?with	 ?the	 ?subconscious	 ?proved	 ?pivotal	 ?in	 ?transferring	 ?power	 ?from	 ?asylums	 ?and	 ?institutions	 ?to	 ?medical	 ?professionals,	 ?namely	 ?psychiatrists.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? Following	 ?Foucault?s	 ?analysis,	 ?one	 ?could	 ?argue	 ?that	 ?the	 ?evolution	 ?has	 ?continued.	 ?	 ?There	 ?has	 ?been	 ?increasing	 ?study	 ?and	 ?development	 ?in	 ?biology	 ?and	 ?psychopharmacology,	 ?	 ? 24	 ?leading	 ?to	 ?the	 ?advances	 ?in	 ?treatment	 ?of	 ?the	 ?body.	 ?	 ?Science	 ?and	 ?medicine	 ?have	 ?also	 ?continued	 ?to	 ?dominate	 ?the	 ?discourse	 ?on	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?throughout	 ?the	 ?twentieth	 ?and	 ?twenty-??first	 ?centuries,	 ?upholding	 ?the	 ?power	 ?of	 ?psychiatrists	 ?and	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?experts	 ?(Estroff	 ?et	 ?al.,	 ?1991;	 ?Fee,	 ?2000).	 ?	 ?However,	 ?changes	 ?in	 ?society	 ?have	 ?also	 ?contributed	 ?to	 ?shifts	 ?in	 ?ways	 ?of	 ?thinking	 ?about	 ?mental	 ?illness.	 ?	 ?One	 ?example	 ?of	 ?this	 ?in	 ?recent	 ?history	 ?is	 ?the	 ?case	 ?regarding	 ?homosexuality.	 ?	 ?	 ?Up	 ?until	 ?1973	 ?homosexuality	 ?was	 ?listed	 ?in	 ?the	 ?DSM	 ?as	 ?a	 ?sexual	 ?deviation,	 ?based	 ?on	 ?the	 ?popular	 ?assumption	 ?that	 ?all	 ?individuals	 ?who	 ?were	 ?gay	 ?desired	 ?a	 ?sexual	 ?reorientation	 ?that	 ?would	 ?permit	 ?them	 ?to	 ?become	 ?heterosexual	 ?(Davison	 ?et	 ?al.,	 ?2004;	 ?Drescher,	 ?2010).	 ?	 ?Following	 ?immense	 ?pressure	 ?from	 ?gay	 ?rights	 ?groups	 ?and	 ?other	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?professionals,	 ?including	 ?young	 ?psychiatrists	 ?with	 ?progressive	 ?ideas	 ?(Drescher,	 ?2010),	 ?the	 ?American	 ?Psychiatric	 ?Association	 ?(APA)	 ?was	 ?eventually	 ?forced	 ?to	 ?change	 ?this	 ?diagnosis.	 ?	 ?In	 ?the	 ?early	 ?years	 ?of	 ?the	 ?DSM,	 ?dominant	 ?social	 ?norms	 ?and	 ?attitudes	 ?regarding	 ?homosexuality	 ?hindered	 ?the	 ?APA?s	 ?willingness	 ?to	 ?enter	 ?into	 ?serious	 ?dialogue	 ?about	 ?eliminating	 ?it	 ?as	 ?a	 ?mental	 ?disorder.	 ?Ultimately,	 ?following	 ?massive	 ?debate	 ?and	 ?protest	 ?by	 ?gay	 ?right?s	 ?activists	 ?in	 ?the	 ?late	 ?1960s	 ?and	 ?early	 ?1970s,	 ?the	 ?diagnosis	 ?of	 ?homosexuality	 ?was	 ?removed,	 ?and	 ?a	 ?new	 ?diagnosis	 ?called	 ?sexual-??orientation	 ?disturbance	 ?was	 ?created	 ?(Drescher,	 ?2010).	 ?	 ?This	 ?new	 ?diagnosis	 ?was	 ?designed	 ?to	 ?include	 ?individuals	 ?who	 ?were	 ?gay,	 ?but	 ?felt	 ?distressed	 ?and	 ?wished	 ?to	 ?become	 ?heterosexual	 ?(Davison	 ?et	 ?al.,	 ?2004;	 ?Drescher,	 ?2010).	 ?	 ?In	 ?1980	 ?the	 ?creators	 ?of	 ?the	 ?DSM-??III	 ?(APA,	 ?2012)	 ?revised	 ?this	 ?diagnosis	 ?yet	 ?again,	 ?creating	 ?the	 ?diagnosis	 ?of	 ?ego-??dystonic	 ?homosexuality;	 ?however	 ?remained	 ?cautious	 ?about	 ?eliminating	 ?homosexuality	 ?as	 ?a	 ?mental	 ?disorder	 ?altogether	 ?(Drescher,	 ?2010).	 ?	 ?It	 ?wasn?t	 ?until	 ?the	 ?creation	 ?of	 ?the	 ?DSM-??IV	 ?in	 ?1994	 ?(APA,	 ?2012)	 ?that	 ?homosexuality	 ?was	 ?entirely	 ?erased	 ?form	 ?the	 ?manual,	 ?again	 ?reflecting	 ?the	 ?	 ? 25	 ?changing	 ?social	 ?norms,	 ?values	 ?and	 ?attitudes	 ?toward	 ?this	 ?behaviour	 ?(Davison	 ?et	 ?al.,	 ?2004;	 ?Drescher,	 ?2010).	 ?	 ?Today,	 ?one	 ?can	 ?speculate	 ?that	 ?the	 ?idea	 ?of	 ?homosexuality	 ?as	 ?a	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?would	 ?likely	 ?seem	 ?outrageous	 ?to	 ?most	 ?people	 ?living	 ?in	 ?Canada.	 ?The	 ?power	 ?that	 ?such	 ?societal	 ?shifts	 ?in	 ?thinking	 ?have	 ?on	 ?defining	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?continues	 ?to	 ?be	 ?evident	 ?in	 ?the	 ?most	 ?recent	 ?version	 ?of	 ?the	 ?DSM,	 ?which	 ?increasingly	 ?presents	 ?as	 ?a	 ?subjective	 ?and	 ?fluid	 ?diagnostic	 ?source	 ?that	 ?is	 ?representative	 ?but	 ?also	 ?dependant	 ?on	 ?the	 ?interplay	 ?between	 ?society	 ?and	 ?definitions	 ?of	 ?normal	 ?and	 ?abnormal	 ?behaviour.	 ?Though	 ?continuing	 ?to	 ?uphold	 ?the	 ?notion	 ?that	 ?mental	 ?illnesses	 ?are	 ?disorders	 ?that	 ?must	 ?be	 ?treated,	 ?the	 ?creators	 ?of	 ?the	 ?DSM	 ?V	 ?chose	 ?to	 ?incorporate	 ?an	 ?increasing	 ?number	 ?of	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?spectrums	 ?in	 ?order	 ?to	 ?pay	 ?credence	 ?to	 ?the	 ?variability	 ?of	 ?symptoms,	 ?rather	 ?than	 ?remain	 ?within	 ?the	 ?confines	 ?of	 ?black	 ?and	 ?white	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?diagnoses	 ?(APA,	 ?2013).	 ?	 ?Certain	 ?disorders,	 ?such	 ?as	 ?autism	 ?and	 ?Asperger?s	 ?syndrome	 ?were	 ?merged	 ?into	 ?one,	 ?as	 ?were	 ?all	 ?the	 ?subtypes	 ?that	 ?previously	 ?existed	 ?for	 ?schizophrenia	 ?(APA,	 ?2013).	 ?	 ?Additionally,	 ?certain	 ?words	 ?were	 ?changed	 ?or	 ?removed	 ?in	 ?order	 ?to	 ?reflect	 ?shifts	 ?in	 ?contemporary	 ?language.	 ?	 ?Examples	 ?include	 ?the	 ?removal	 ?of	 ?the	 ?terms	 ??mental	 ?retardation?	 ?and	 ??stuttering?	 ?and	 ?their	 ?replacement	 ?with	 ??intellectual	 ?disability?	 ?and	 ??childhood-??onset	 ?fluency	 ?disorder?	 ?in	 ?order	 ?to	 ?reflect	 ?widespread	 ?use	 ?of	 ?this	 ?new	 ?terminology	 ?amongst	 ?professionals	 ?and	 ?advocacy	 ?groups	 ?(APA,	 ?2013).	 ?	 ?These	 ?alterations	 ?support	 ?and	 ?demonstrate	 ?the	 ?fluidity	 ?of	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?diagnoses,	 ?and	 ?highlight	 ?the	 ?influence	 ?that	 ?society	 ?has	 ?on	 ?such	 ?manuals.	 ?	 ?	 ?It	 ?appears	 ?that	 ?the	 ?Canadian	 ?Mental	 ?Health	 ?Association	 ?(CMHA)	 ?is	 ?also	 ?becoming	 ?aware	 ?of	 ?changing	 ?perspectives.	 ?	 ?The	 ?organization	 ?has	 ?recently	 ?launched	 ?a	 ?new	 ?Strategic	 ?Plan	 ?2012-??2017,	 ?in	 ?which	 ?it	 ?acknowledges	 ?that	 ?attitudes	 ?about	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?are	 ?shifting.	 ?	 ?It	 ?points	 ?to	 ?enhanced	 ?media	 ?exposure	 ?as	 ?a	 ?catalyst	 ?for	 ?raising	 ?awareness	 ?about	 ?mental	 ?	 ? 26	 ?illness,	 ?and	 ?claims:	 ??There?s	 ?a	 ?greater	 ?societal	 ?recognition	 ?of,	 ?and	 ?attention	 ?to,	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?and	 ?mental	 ?illness?	 ?(p.4).	 ?	 ?The	 ?CMHA	 ?also	 ?recognizes	 ?the	 ?monumental	 ?importance	 ?of	 ?the	 ?recent	 ?development	 ?of	 ?Canada?s	 ?first-??ever	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?strategy,	 ?and	 ?the	 ?mass	 ?consultation	 ?with	 ?individuals	 ?in	 ?the	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?community	 ?that	 ?led	 ?to	 ?its	 ?creation.	 ?	 ?Following	 ?copious	 ?amounts	 ?of	 ?interviews	 ?with	 ?service	 ?users,	 ?it	 ?appears	 ?that	 ?Canada	 ?may	 ?have	 ?a	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?strategy	 ?that	 ?has	 ?been	 ?largely	 ?user-??led.	 ?A	 ?quote	 ?by	 ?one	 ?of	 ?the	 ?individuals	 ?interviewed	 ?by	 ?the	 ?CMHA	 ?encompasses	 ?the	 ?present	 ?changes	 ?in	 ?attitudes	 ?toward	 ?mental	 ?illness:	 ??To	 ?eliminate	 ?or	 ?reduce	 ?stigma	 ?associated	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?we	 ?have	 ?to	 ?peel	 ?back	 ?the	 ?layers	 ?of	 ?taboo	 ?and	 ?get	 ?people	 ?talking.	 ?	 ?It?s	 ?perfectly	 ?acceptable	 ?and	 ?normal	 ?to	 ?talk	 ?about	 ?mental	 ?illness?	 ?(p.4)	 ?Perhaps	 ?one	 ?of	 ?the	 ?places	 ?where	 ?major	 ?change	 ?in	 ?attitude	 ?may	 ?be	 ?presently	 ?occurring	 ?is	 ?with	 ?post-??traumatic	 ?stress	 ?disorder.	 ?	 ?There	 ?appears	 ?to	 ?be	 ?widespread	 ?acknowledgement	 ?that	 ?trauma	 ?is	 ?justification	 ?for	 ?behaviours	 ?associated	 ?with	 ?the	 ?diagnosis	 ?of	 ?PTSD,	 ?and	 ?awareness	 ?regarding	 ?the	 ?emotional	 ?and	 ?physiological	 ?impacts	 ?of	 ?trauma	 ?may	 ?be	 ?growing.	 ?	 ?	 ?In	 ?the	 ?weeks	 ?following	 ?the	 ?2001	 ?terrorism	 ?attacks	 ?on	 ?the	 ?World	 ?Trade	 ?Centre	 ?in	 ?New	 ?York,	 ?preliminary	 ?surveys	 ?revealed	 ?that	 ?approximately	 ?520,	 ?000	 ?New	 ?York	 ?residents	 ?were	 ?experiencing	 ?symptoms	 ?of	 ?PTSD	 ?as	 ?a	 ?direct	 ?result	 ?of	 ?the	 ?trauma	 ?induced	 ?by	 ?the	 ?attacks,	 ?and	 ?another	 ?3.1	 ?million	 ?were	 ?experiencing	 ?heavy	 ?emotional	 ?distress	 ?(Felton,	 ?2002).	 ?	 ?Consequently,	 ?the	 ?New	 ?York	 ?State	 ?Office	 ?of	 ?Mental	 ?Health	 ?launched	 ?a	 ?free	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?service	 ?to	 ?all	 ?residents	 ?of	 ?New	 ?York,	 ?providing	 ?public	 ?education	 ?about	 ?trauma,	 ?stress	 ?and	 ?coping	 ?strategies,	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?free	 ?counseling	 ?(Felton,	 ?2002).	 ?	 ?One	 ?of	 ?the	 ?main	 ?strategies	 ?of	 ?this	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?program	 ?was	 ?to	 ?normalize	 ?the	 ?symptoms	 ?that	 ?people	 ?were	 ?experiencing,	 ?	 ? 27	 ?enforcing	 ?that	 ?extreme	 ?grief,	 ?stress	 ?and	 ?sadness	 ?were	 ?normal	 ?reactions	 ?to	 ?such	 ?an	 ?event.	 ?	 ?Services	 ?were	 ?also	 ?made	 ?available	 ?to	 ?those	 ?whose	 ?traumatic	 ?symptoms	 ?persisted,	 ?and	 ?consequently	 ?warranted	 ?a	 ?diagnosis	 ?of	 ?PTSD.	 ?	 ?Again,	 ?the	 ?diagnosing	 ?of	 ?PTSD	 ?amongst	 ?these	 ?individuals	 ?was	 ?normalized.	 ?	 ?Interestingly,	 ?program	 ?coordinators	 ?chose	 ?to	 ?name	 ?the	 ?program	 ?Project	 ?Liberty,	 ?in	 ?order	 ?to	 ?detach	 ?it	 ?from	 ?conventional	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?treatment	 ?schemes.	 ?	 ?Phrases	 ?such	 ?as	 ??mental	 ?health	 ?treatment?	 ?or	 ??mental	 ?health	 ?program?	 ?were	 ?strategically	 ?dismissed	 ?due	 ?to	 ?fears	 ?that	 ?stigma	 ?would	 ?prevent	 ?New	 ?Yorkers	 ?from	 ?engaging	 ?with	 ?the	 ?program.	 ?	 ?Program	 ?coordinators	 ?chose	 ?to	 ?discuss	 ?symptoms	 ?instead	 ?of	 ?diagnoses,	 ?and	 ?found	 ?this	 ?method	 ?far	 ?more	 ?successful,	 ?and	 ?more	 ?conducive	 ?to	 ?normalizing	 ?symptoms	 ?associated	 ?with	 ?trauma.	 ?Along	 ?similar	 ?lines,	 ?in	 ?2001	 ?the	 ?Canadian	 ?Department	 ?of	 ?National	 ?Defense	 ?partnered	 ?with	 ?Veteran?s	 ?Affairs	 ?Canada	 ?to	 ?create	 ?the	 ?Operational	 ?Stress	 ?Injury	 ?Support	 ?Program	 ?(2012).	 ?	 ?This	 ?non-??clinical	 ?peer	 ?support	 ?program	 ?offers	 ?support	 ?for	 ?Canadian	 ?veterans	 ?who	 ?are	 ?living	 ?with	 ?symptoms	 ?of	 ?PTSD.	 ?	 ?These	 ?peer	 ?support	 ?services	 ?are	 ?made	 ?available	 ?to	 ?veterans	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?to	 ?their	 ?families.	 ?	 ?Interestingly,	 ?the	 ?term	 ??operational	 ?stress	 ?injury	 ?(OSI)?	 ?is	 ?used	 ?instead	 ?of	 ?PTSD	 ?or	 ?trauma.	 ?	 ?Given	 ?the	 ?apprehensions	 ?regarding	 ?stigma	 ?as	 ?discussed	 ?by	 ?Felton	 ?(2002),	 ?it	 ?is	 ?plausible	 ?that	 ?the	 ?rationale	 ?for	 ?using	 ?different	 ?terminology	 ?also	 ?stems	 ?from	 ?concerns	 ?surrounding	 ?this	 ?issue.	 ?	 ?	 ? Despite	 ?some	 ?evidence	 ?pointing	 ?to	 ?stigma	 ?against	 ?the	 ?term	 ?PTSD,	 ?an	 ?Australian	 ?study	 ?by	 ?Reavley	 ?and	 ?Jorm	 ?(2011)	 ?showed	 ?an	 ?increased	 ?acceptance	 ?of	 ?PTSD	 ?when	 ?compared	 ?with	 ?other	 ?mental	 ?illnesses.	 ?	 ?Over	 ?six	 ?thousand	 ?participants	 ?were	 ?presented	 ?with	 ?vignettes	 ?describing	 ?different	 ?mental	 ?illnesses.	 ?	 ?Attitudes	 ?toward	 ?PTSD	 ?appeared	 ?the	 ?least	 ?stigmatizing	 ?when	 ?compared	 ?with	 ?other	 ?diagnoses.	 ?	 ?Reavley	 ?and	 ?Jorm	 ?(2011)	 ?speculate	 ?	 ? 28	 ?that	 ?this	 ?could	 ?have	 ?been	 ?due	 ?to	 ?widespread	 ?understanding	 ?that	 ?symptoms	 ?of	 ?PTSD	 ?are	 ?caused	 ?by	 ?an	 ?external	 ?source,	 ?and	 ?consequently,	 ?individuals	 ?exhibiting	 ?such	 ?symptoms	 ?are	 ?deemed	 ?less	 ?blameworthy.	 ?	 ? Yet	 ?another	 ?study	 ?by	 ?Gould,	 ?Greenberg	 ?and	 ?Hetherton	 ?(2007)	 ?explored	 ?attitudes	 ?about	 ?trauma	 ?in	 ?the	 ?UK	 ?military.	 ?	 ?Researchers	 ?evaluated	 ?the	 ?trauma	 ?risk	 ?management	 ?(TRiM)	 ?program,	 ?which	 ?was	 ?developed	 ?by	 ?the	 ?Royal	 ?Navy	 ?as	 ?a	 ?campaign	 ?for	 ?promoting	 ?help-??seeking	 ?behaviours	 ?and	 ?a	 ?normalization	 ?of	 ?symptoms	 ?relating	 ?to	 ?PTSD.	 ?	 ?The	 ?aim	 ?was	 ?to	 ?challenge	 ?old-??fashioned	 ?beliefs,	 ?which	 ?stated	 ?that	 ?any	 ?soldier	 ?who	 ?sought	 ?help	 ?and	 ?counselling	 ?following	 ?a	 ?traumatic	 ?event	 ?was	 ?weak	 ?and	 ?feeble.	 ?	 ?The	 ?TRiM	 ?program	 ?used	 ?education	 ?and	 ?personal	 ?contact	 ?with	 ?individuals	 ?who	 ?have	 ?PTSD	 ?as	 ?the	 ?main	 ?source	 ?of	 ?operation,	 ?and	 ?found	 ?these	 ?strategies	 ?to	 ?be	 ?successful.	 ?	 ?Program	 ?coordinators	 ?and	 ?researchers	 ?found	 ?a	 ?decrease	 ?in	 ?negative	 ?stereotyping	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?an	 ?increase	 ?in	 ?help-??seeking	 ?behaviours	 ?following	 ?the	 ?launch	 ?of	 ?the	 ?campaign.	 ?	 ?Interestingly,	 ?researchers	 ?also	 ?discovered	 ?that	 ?attitudes	 ?toward	 ?PTSD	 ?and	 ?symptoms	 ?of	 ?trauma	 ?were	 ?generally	 ?positive	 ?at	 ?baseline;	 ?however	 ?it	 ?appeared	 ?that	 ?cultural	 ?norms,	 ?which	 ?belittled	 ?such	 ?attitudes,	 ?hindered	 ?the	 ?participant?s	 ?willingness	 ?to	 ?express	 ?these	 ?beliefs.	 ?	 ?The	 ?effects	 ?of	 ?stigma	 ?will	 ?be	 ?discussed	 ?in	 ?greater	 ?detail	 ?below.	 ?Psychosocial	 ?Rehabilitation	 ?and	 ?Recovery	 ?The	 ?last	 ?few	 ?decades	 ?have	 ?witnessed	 ?what	 ?some	 ?might	 ?consider	 ?a	 ?revolution	 ?in	 ?the	 ?way	 ?that	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?has	 ?begun	 ?to	 ?be	 ?conceptualized	 ?by	 ?the	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?community.	 ?The	 ?success	 ?of	 ?recent	 ?drug	 ?therapies	 ?as	 ?well	 ?at	 ?a	 ?shift	 ?toward	 ?more	 ?holistic	 ?approaches	 ?to	 ?treatment	 ?has	 ?contributed	 ?to	 ?the	 ?emergence	 ?of	 ?a	 ?Psychosocial	 ?Rehabilitation	 ?(PSR)	 ?model	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?an	 ?acceptance	 ?of	 ?recovery	 ?in	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?(CMHA,	 ?2012;	 ?Kelly	 ?et	 ?al.,	 ?2009;	 ?	 ? 29	 ?Mental	 ?Health	 ?Commission	 ?of	 ?Canada,	 ?2012;	 ?World	 ?Health	 ?Organization	 ?(WHO),	 ?1996).	 ?	 ?In	 ?fact,	 ?one	 ?could	 ?argue	 ?that	 ?PSR	 ?amalgamates	 ?certain	 ?aspects	 ?of	 ?the	 ?biomedical	 ?and	 ?social	 ?constructionist	 ?approaches,	 ?paying	 ?heed	 ?to	 ?bio-??socio-??psychological	 ?determinants	 ?of	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?and	 ?wellness.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?PSR	 ?was	 ?first	 ?developed	 ?and	 ?practiced	 ?in	 ?hospital	 ?settings;	 ?however	 ?it	 ?has	 ?since	 ?grown	 ?into	 ?a	 ?paradigm	 ?that	 ?encompasses	 ?all	 ?individuals	 ?living	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness,	 ?whether	 ?hospitalized	 ?or	 ?not	 ?(WHO,	 ?1996).	 ?	 ?Not	 ?only	 ?does	 ?PSR	 ?offer	 ?a	 ?new	 ?way	 ?of	 ?defining	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?but	 ?it	 ?also	 ?provides	 ?a	 ?new	 ?way	 ?of	 ?organizing	 ?services	 ?and	 ?resources.	 ?	 ?Services	 ?that	 ?follow	 ?this	 ?model	 ?focus	 ?on	 ?prevention	 ?and	 ?reduction	 ?strategies	 ?in	 ?the	 ?hopes	 ?of	 ?challenging	 ?some	 ?of	 ?the	 ?barriers	 ?and	 ?constraints	 ?that	 ?traditionally	 ?accompany	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?(WHO,	 ?1996).	 ?These	 ?strategies	 ?use	 ?a	 ?bio-??psycho-??social	 ?approach	 ?to	 ?create	 ?an	 ?environment	 ?that	 ?is	 ?opportunistic	 ?and	 ?conductive	 ?to	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness.	 ?The	 ?aim	 ?is	 ?to	 ?permit	 ?these	 ?individuals	 ?to	 ?reach	 ?their	 ?optimal	 ?level	 ?of	 ?independent	 ?functioning	 ?in	 ?the	 ?community	 ?(Mental	 ?Health	 ?Commission	 ?of	 ?Canada,	 ?2011;WHO,	 ?1996).	 ?	 ?	 ?It	 ?is	 ?consequently	 ?a	 ?philosophy	 ?that	 ?encompasses	 ?all	 ?levels	 ?of	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?practice,	 ?from	 ?micro	 ?to	 ?mezzo	 ?to	 ?macro.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?In	 ?practice,	 ?PSR	 ?aspires	 ?to	 ?maximize	 ?continuity	 ?of	 ?care	 ?and	 ?treatment,	 ?and	 ?to	 ?recognize	 ?an	 ?individual?s	 ?strengths	 ?and	 ?capacity	 ?for	 ?autonomy	 ?and	 ?self-??determination	 ?(WHO,	 ?1996).	 ?	 ?It	 ?is	 ?a	 ?holistic	 ?way	 ?of	 ?looking	 ?at	 ?mental	 ?illness,	 ?combining	 ?the	 ?use	 ?of	 ?therapy	 ?and	 ?pharmaceuticals	 ?with	 ?independent	 ?life	 ?skills,	 ?family	 ?and	 ?community	 ?involvement	 ?(WHO,	 ?1996).	 ?	 ?The	 ?principles	 ?of	 ?PSR	 ?are	 ?grounded	 ?on	 ?the	 ?right	 ?to	 ?dignity,	 ?worth	 ?and	 ?quality	 ?of	 ?life	 ?and	 ?the	 ?belief	 ?that	 ?recovery	 ?is	 ?possible	 ?(CMHA,	 ?2012;	 ?Mental	 ?Health	 ?Commission	 ?of	 ?Canada,	 ?2012).	 ?	 ?The	 ?Mental	 ?Health	 ?Strategy	 ?for	 ?Canada	 ?(2012)	 ?asserts	 ?that	 ?even	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?the	 ?most	 ?severe	 ?mental	 ?illnesses	 ?can	 ?obtain	 ?good	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?and	 ?achieve	 ?recovery.	 ?	 ?	 ? 30	 ?Recovery	 ?is	 ?not	 ?synonymous	 ?with	 ??cure?	 ?but	 ?rather	 ?is	 ?a	 ?concept	 ?based	 ?on	 ?notions	 ?of	 ?hope,	 ?empowerment,	 ?self-??determination,	 ?responsibility	 ?and	 ?values	 ?of	 ?dignity,	 ?respect	 ?and	 ?autonomy	 ?(Mental	 ?Health	 ?Commission	 ?of	 ?Canada,	 ?2012).	 ?	 ?The	 ?Mental	 ?Health	 ?Commission	 ?of	 ?Canada	 ?(2011)	 ?claims	 ?that	 ?no	 ?single	 ?definition	 ?of	 ?recovery	 ?is	 ?possible	 ?because	 ?there	 ?is	 ?no	 ?neatly	 ?defined	 ?path	 ?to	 ?it;	 ?recovery	 ?is	 ?unique	 ?for	 ?every	 ?individual.	 ?	 ?The	 ?Commission	 ?also	 ?reminds	 ?us	 ?that	 ?a	 ?person	 ?can	 ?recover	 ?his	 ?or	 ?her	 ?life	 ?without	 ?recovering	 ?from	 ?the	 ?illness,	 ?and	 ?consequently,	 ?the	 ?definition	 ?of	 ?recovery	 ?must	 ?remain	 ?subjective	 ?and	 ?open	 ?to	 ?individual	 ?interpretation.	 ?	 ?Although	 ?there	 ?is	 ?no	 ?agreed-??upon	 ?definition	 ?of	 ??recovery?	 ?there	 ?is	 ?some	 ?consensus	 ?about	 ?what	 ?its	 ?key	 ?components	 ?are	 ?(Mental	 ?Health	 ?Commission	 ?of	 ?Canada,	 ?2011).	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?Recovery	 ?is	 ?rooted	 ?in	 ?hope,	 ?which	 ?is	 ?defined	 ?as	 ?believing	 ?in	 ?oneself	 ?and	 ?having	 ?a	 ?sense	 ?of	 ?optimism	 ?in	 ?one?s	 ?ability	 ?to	 ?accomplish	 ?things.	 ?	 ?It	 ?is	 ?also	 ?rooted	 ?in	 ?re-??establishing	 ?a	 ?positive	 ?sense	 ?of	 ?identity	 ?and	 ?a	 ?positive	 ?view	 ?of	 ?self.	 ?	 ?In	 ?addition,	 ?recovery	 ?is	 ?also	 ?grounded	 ?on	 ?the	 ?notion	 ?that	 ?every	 ?individual	 ?has	 ?the	 ?right	 ?to	 ?build	 ?a	 ?meaningful	 ?life,	 ?despite	 ?the	 ?existence	 ?of	 ?a	 ?mental	 ?illness.	 ?	 ?Lastly,	 ?recovery	 ?emphasizes	 ?taking	 ?control	 ?of	 ?one?s	 ?life,	 ?one?s	 ?illness	 ?and	 ?one?s	 ?destiny,	 ?accordingly	 ?placing	 ?value	 ?in	 ?self-??determination	 ?and	 ?autonomy.	 ?	 ?	 ?In	 ?2003	 ?a	 ?team	 ?of	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?experts	 ?was	 ?assembled	 ?in	 ?order	 ?to	 ?test	 ?the	 ?boundaries	 ?of	 ?the	 ?recovery	 ?model	 ?and	 ?compile	 ?a	 ?definition	 ?of	 ?the	 ?term	 ??remission?	 ?in	 ?schizophrenia	 ?(Andreasen,	 ?Carpenter,	 ?Kane,	 ?Lasser,	 ?Marder,	 ?&	 ?Weinberger,	 ?2005;	 ?Kelly	 ?et	 ?al.,	 ?2009).	 ?	 ?These	 ?experts,	 ?who	 ?were	 ?all	 ?psychiatrists,	 ?formed	 ?a	 ?working	 ?group	 ?and	 ?eventually	 ?succeeded	 ?in	 ?reaching	 ?consensus	 ?on	 ?this	 ?issue.	 ?	 ?Their	 ?new	 ?definition	 ?of	 ?the	 ?term	 ??remission?	 ?underlines	 ?a	 ?similar	 ?collection	 ?of	 ?values	 ?to	 ?those	 ?mentioned	 ?above	 ?but	 ?pushes	 ?a	 ?more	 ?positivist	 ?approach	 ?to	 ?the	 ?concept,	 ?focusing	 ?on	 ?the	 ?reduction	 ?of	 ?symptoms.	 ?	 ?They	 ?	 ? 31	 ?defined	 ?remission	 ?in	 ?schizophrenia	 ?as	 ?a	 ?state	 ?in	 ?which	 ?the	 ?symptoms	 ?of	 ?the	 ?illness	 ?are	 ?of	 ?such	 ?low	 ?intensity	 ?that	 ?they	 ?no	 ?longer	 ?interfere	 ?significantly	 ?with	 ?daily	 ?living,	 ?and	 ?that	 ?they	 ?are	 ?below	 ?what	 ?would	 ?typically	 ?be	 ?used	 ?to	 ?make	 ?a	 ?schizophrenia	 ?diagnosis	 ?(Andreasen	 ?et	 ?al,	 ?2005).	 ?	 ?According	 ?to	 ?the	 ?Mental	 ?Health	 ?Commission	 ?of	 ?Canada	 ?(2011),	 ?approximately	 ?25%	 ?of	 ?individuals	 ?diagnosed	 ?with	 ?a	 ?serious	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?would	 ?meet	 ?these	 ?criteria.	 ?	 ?	 ?Stigma	 ?Despite	 ?improved	 ?outcomes	 ?and	 ?an	 ?obvious	 ?paradigm	 ?shift	 ?within	 ?the	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?community	 ?there	 ?is	 ?one	 ?obstacle	 ?that	 ?continues	 ?to	 ?plague	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?and	 ?hinder	 ?the	 ?potential	 ?for	 ?recovery	 ?and	 ?social	 ?inclusion.	 ?	 ?This	 ?obstacle	 ?is	 ?social	 ?stigma.	 ?	 ?Stigma	 ?has	 ?been	 ?defined	 ?as	 ??negative	 ?stereotypes	 ?and	 ?prejudices	 ?about	 ?people	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness,	 ??that	 ?are	 ?a	 ?widespread	 ?phenomenon	 ?with	 ?damaging	 ?social,	 ?psychological	 ?and	 ?economic	 ?consequences?	 ?(Eisenberg,	 ?Downs,	 ?&	 ?Golberstein,	 ?2012,	 ?p.1122).	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?It	 ?can	 ?have	 ?very	 ?negative	 ?impacts	 ?on	 ?quality	 ?of	 ?life	 ?and	 ?appears	 ?to	 ?be	 ?especially	 ?negative	 ?towards	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?schizophrenia	 ?when	 ?compared	 ?with	 ?other	 ?mental	 ?illnesses	 ?(Norman,	 ?Sorrentino,	 ?Windell,	 ?&	 ?Manchanda,	 ?2008;	 ?Revley	 ?&	 ?Jorm,	 ?2011;	 ?Sadler,	 ?Meagor,	 ?&	 ?Kaye,	 ?2012).	 ?	 ?According	 ?to	 ?a	 ?study	 ?conducted	 ?by	 ?Norman	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?(2008),	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?schizophrenia	 ?were	 ?perceived	 ?as	 ?highly	 ?dangerous	 ?and	 ?socially	 ?inappropriate.	 ?	 ?The	 ?results	 ?demonstrated	 ?that	 ?subjects	 ?preferred	 ?to	 ?keep	 ?these	 ?individuals	 ?at	 ?a	 ?distance.	 ?	 ?Although	 ?subjects	 ?were	 ?less	 ?likely	 ?to	 ?assign	 ?blame	 ?for	 ?the	 ?illness	 ?to	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?schizophrenia	 ?than	 ?to	 ?those	 ?with	 ?depression,	 ?results	 ?also	 ?imply	 ?that	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?depression	 ?are	 ?more	 ?socially	 ?accepted	 ?than	 ?those	 ?with	 ?schizophrenia.	 ?	 ?Interestingly	 ?the	 ?higher	 ?the	 ?amount	 ?of	 ?experience	 ?with	 ?people	 ?with	 ?schizophrenia,	 ?the	 ?lower	 ?the	 ?perception	 ?of	 ?danger,	 ?	 ? 32	 ?demonstrating	 ?perhaps	 ?the	 ?degree	 ?of	 ?negative	 ?stereotyping	 ?that	 ?is	 ?associated	 ?with	 ?this	 ?illness.	 ?	 ?The	 ?study	 ?by	 ?Reavley	 ?and	 ?Jorm	 ?(2011)	 ?highlighted	 ?similar	 ?results.	 ?	 ?Individuals	 ?with	 ?schizophrenia	 ?were	 ?most	 ?likely	 ?to	 ?be	 ?considered	 ?dangerous,	 ?unpredictable	 ?and	 ?unemployable	 ?when	 ?compared	 ?with	 ?other	 ?mental	 ?illnesses.	 ?	 ?Interestingly,	 ?researchers	 ?also	 ?found	 ?a	 ?relatively	 ?high	 ?degree	 ?of	 ?stigma	 ?directed	 ?at	 ?social	 ?phobia.	 ?	 ?Participants	 ?generally	 ?believed	 ?that	 ?social	 ?phobia	 ?was	 ?not	 ?a	 ?real	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?and	 ?consequently,	 ?such	 ?behaviour	 ?was	 ?deemed	 ?the	 ?result	 ?of	 ?personal	 ?weakness.	 ?	 ?Further	 ?evidence	 ?of	 ?the	 ?severity	 ?of	 ?stigma	 ?that	 ?is	 ?associated	 ?specifically	 ?with	 ?schizophrenia	 ?can	 ?be	 ?seen	 ?in	 ?the	 ?results	 ?of	 ?a	 ?study	 ?conducted	 ?by	 ?Sadler	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?(2012).	 ?	 ?These	 ?showed	 ?that	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?schizophrenia	 ?were	 ?rated	 ?as	 ?more	 ?hostile	 ?and	 ?incompetent	 ?when	 ?compared	 ?with	 ?people	 ?with	 ?other	 ?mental	 ?illnesses.	 ?	 ?It	 ?is	 ?also	 ?interesting	 ?to	 ?note	 ?that	 ?22%	 ?of	 ?subjects	 ?in	 ?this	 ?study	 ?also	 ?identified	 ?violent	 ?crime	 ?as	 ?a	 ?mental	 ?illness,	 ?and	 ?14%	 ?identified	 ?homelessness.	 ?	 ?These	 ?figures	 ?are	 ?telling	 ?and	 ?may	 ?indicate	 ?a	 ?lack	 ?of	 ?education	 ?and	 ?knowledge	 ?about	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?in	 ?the	 ?general	 ?public.	 ?	 ?Homeless	 ?individuals	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?those	 ?with	 ?addictions	 ?were	 ?placed	 ?in	 ?the	 ?same	 ?category	 ?as	 ?schizophrenia:	 ?the	 ?most	 ?hostile	 ?and	 ?least	 ?capable.	 ?	 ?All	 ?three	 ?received	 ?the	 ?lowest	 ?ratings	 ?on	 ?measures	 ?of	 ?warmth	 ?and	 ?competence.	 ?	 ?Warmth	 ?was	 ?defined	 ?as	 ?a	 ?measure	 ?of	 ?perceived	 ?intention.	 ?	 ?The	 ?intention	 ?could	 ?be	 ?either	 ?malicious	 ?or	 ?beneficent.	 ?	 ?Anna	 ?Scheyett	 ?(2005),	 ?a	 ?social	 ?worker,	 ?studied	 ?stigma	 ?and	 ?found	 ?it	 ?to	 ?be	 ?quite	 ?pervasive.	 ?	 ?Her	 ?research	 ?revealed	 ?that	 ?a	 ?survey	 ?conducted	 ?in	 ?the	 ?US	 ?uncovered	 ?that	 ?70%	 ?of	 ?respondents	 ?did	 ?not	 ?want	 ?someone	 ?with	 ?depression	 ?to	 ?marry	 ?into	 ?their	 ?family,	 ?and	 ?only	 ?19%	 ?of	 ?participants	 ?from	 ?another	 ?survey	 ?admitted	 ?to	 ?feeling	 ?comfortable	 ?around	 ?people	 ?	 ? 33	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness.	 ?	 ?Some	 ?of	 ?the	 ?other	 ?studies	 ?that	 ?Scheyett	 ?(2005)	 ?looked	 ?at	 ?revealed	 ?that	 ?mothers	 ?were	 ?more	 ?comfortable	 ?leaving	 ?their	 ?children	 ?in	 ?the	 ?care	 ?of	 ?an	 ??ex-??con?	 ?than	 ?a	 ?person	 ?with	 ?a	 ?mental	 ?illness,	 ?and	 ?that	 ?39%	 ?of	 ?Australian	 ?psychiatrists	 ?said	 ?that	 ?they	 ?would	 ?prefer	 ?not	 ?to	 ?work	 ?with	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?intellectual	 ?disabilities	 ?or	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?(Chaplin,	 ?2000;	 ?Lennox	 ?&	 ?Chaplin,	 ?1996).	 ?	 ?	 ?Given	 ?the	 ?seemingly	 ?low	 ?level	 ?of	 ?knowledge	 ?about	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?in	 ?the	 ?general	 ?public,	 ?it	 ?may	 ?be	 ?possible	 ?that	 ?stigma	 ?is	 ?mainly	 ?directed	 ?at	 ?the	 ?diagnosis,	 ?rather	 ?than	 ?the	 ?symptoms	 ?themselves.	 ?	 ?Evidence	 ?appears	 ?to	 ?suggest	 ?that	 ?despite	 ?being	 ?highly	 ?stigmatizing	 ?toward	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?diagnoses,	 ?the	 ?general	 ?public	 ?may	 ?have	 ?little	 ?knowledge	 ?about	 ?symptomology	 ?and	 ?the	 ?behaviours	 ?associated	 ?with	 ?the	 ?label.	 ?	 ?In	 ?a	 ?time	 ?when	 ?norms	 ?and	 ?values	 ?about	 ?behaviour	 ?appear	 ?to	 ?be	 ?changing,	 ?one	 ?must	 ?wonder	 ?whether	 ?this	 ?latter	 ?point	 ?has	 ?significant	 ?implications	 ?for	 ?reducing	 ?stigma	 ?and	 ?normalizing	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?through	 ?education.	 ?	 ?It	 ?is	 ?also	 ?possible	 ?that	 ?the	 ?negative	 ?stereotypes	 ?of	 ?dangerousness	 ?and	 ?violence	 ?stem	 ?from	 ?the	 ?overrepresentation	 ?of	 ?offenders	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?in	 ?the	 ?criminal	 ?justice	 ?system.	 ?The	 ?Mental	 ?Health	 ?Commission	 ?of	 ?Canada	 ?(2012)	 ?claims	 ?that	 ?the	 ?proportion	 ?of	 ?offenders	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?is	 ?greater	 ?than	 ?the	 ?proportion	 ?in	 ?the	 ?general	 ?public.	 ?	 ?Although	 ?the	 ?majority	 ?of	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?are	 ?not	 ?affiliated	 ?with	 ?the	 ?criminal	 ?justice	 ?system,	 ?a	 ?lack	 ?of	 ?resources,	 ?along	 ?with	 ?a	 ?shift	 ?toward	 ?deinstitutionalization,	 ?has	 ?made	 ?this	 ?connection	 ?stronger	 ?(Mental	 ?Health	 ?Commission	 ?of	 ?Canada,	 ?2012).	 ?	 ?According	 ?to	 ?the	 ?Mental	 ?Health	 ?Commission	 ?of	 ?Canada	 ?(2012),	 ?rates	 ?of	 ?offenders	 ?with	 ?serious	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?in	 ?the	 ?federal	 ?system	 ?have	 ?increased	 ?by	 ?60%	 ?to	 ?70%	 ?since	 ?1997,	 ?largely	 ?due	 ?to	 ?inadequate	 ?re-??investment	 ?in	 ?community	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?resources	 ?that	 ?could	 ?provide	 ?support	 ?for	 ?those	 ?	 ? 34	 ?who	 ?were	 ?deinstitutionalized.	 ?	 ?In	 ?its	 ?attempt	 ?to	 ?remedy	 ?this	 ?injustice	 ?the	 ?Mental	 ?Health	 ?Commission	 ?of	 ?Canada	 ?lists	 ?several	 ?possible	 ?solutions.	 ?	 ?One	 ?of	 ?these	 ?solutions	 ?is	 ?diversion	 ?from	 ?traditional	 ?criminal	 ?justice	 ?to	 ?restorative	 ?justice.	 ?A	 ?large	 ?body	 ?of	 ?stigma-??related	 ?literature	 ?pays	 ?special	 ?attention	 ?to	 ?a	 ?phenomenon	 ?known	 ?as	 ?internalized	 ?stigma.	 ?	 ?Internalized	 ?stigma	 ?is	 ?the	 ?process	 ?by	 ?which	 ?negative	 ?stereotypes	 ?that	 ?devalue	 ?and	 ?discriminate	 ?become	 ?internalized.	 ?	 ?This	 ?can	 ?lead	 ?to	 ?self-??stigma,	 ?which	 ?is	 ?a	 ?process	 ?that	 ?occurs	 ?when	 ?there	 ?is	 ?awareness	 ?of	 ?the	 ?stereotype,	 ?agreement	 ?with	 ?the	 ?stereotype	 ?and	 ?application	 ?of	 ?it	 ?to	 ?oneself	 ?(Corrigan,	 ?Larson,	 ?&	 ?Rusch,	 ?2009,	 ?p.75).	 ?	 ?Self-??stigma	 ?has	 ?been	 ?associated	 ?with	 ?low	 ?self-??esteem	 ?and	 ?low	 ?self-??efficacy,	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?the	 ?development	 ?of	 ?what	 ?Corrigan	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?(2009)	 ?refer	 ?to	 ?as	 ?the	 ??why-??try?	 ?effect.	 ?	 ?The	 ??why-??try?	 ?effect	 ?occurs	 ?when	 ?there	 ?is:	 ?1)	 ?an	 ?internalization	 ?of	 ?stereotypes	 ?about	 ?mental	 ?illness,	 ?2)	 ?a	 ?subsequent	 ?decrease	 ?in	 ?the	 ?individual?s	 ?sense	 ?of	 ?self-??esteem	 ?and	 ?self-??efficacy,	 ?3)	 ?and	 ?a	 ?weakened	 ?drive	 ?for	 ?the	 ?pursuit	 ?of	 ?life	 ?goals,	 ?dreams	 ?and	 ?aspirations.	 ?	 ?These	 ?three	 ?factors	 ?result	 ?in	 ?many	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?loosing	 ?their	 ?desire	 ?to	 ?improve	 ?their	 ?life	 ?circumstances	 ?and	 ?pursue	 ?personal	 ?goals	 ?and	 ?aspirations.	 ?	 ?As	 ?a	 ?result,	 ?these	 ?individuals	 ?often	 ?disengage	 ?from	 ?opportunities	 ?that	 ?could	 ?improve	 ?their	 ?housing,	 ?finances	 ?and	 ?overall	 ?self-??satisfaction.	 ?	 ?Internalized	 ?stigma	 ?may	 ?shed	 ?some	 ?light	 ?on	 ?why	 ?approximately	 ?49%	 ?of	 ?Canadians	 ?who	 ?self-??identify	 ?as	 ?having	 ?depression	 ?have	 ?never	 ?gone	 ?to	 ?see	 ?a	 ?doctor	 ?for	 ?it	 ?(CMHA,	 ?2012).	 ?	 ?	 ?The	 ?discussion	 ?on	 ?stigma	 ?opens	 ?the	 ?door	 ?for	 ?generating	 ?ideas	 ?about	 ?how	 ?to	 ?fight	 ?it.	 ?	 ?Scheyett	 ?(2005)	 ?identified	 ?protest,	 ?education	 ?and	 ?personal	 ?contact	 ?as	 ?three	 ?techniques	 ?commonly	 ?used	 ?to	 ?fight	 ?stigma.	 ?	 ?She	 ?argues	 ?that	 ?personal	 ?contact	 ?is	 ?most	 ?effective	 ?in	 ?reducing	 ?stigma,	 ?followed	 ?by	 ?education.	 ?	 ?This	 ?supports	 ?the	 ?aforementioned	 ?observations	 ?	 ? 35	 ?made	 ?by	 ?Norman	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?(2008),	 ?which	 ?found	 ?that	 ?personal	 ?contact	 ?with	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?schizophrenia	 ?decreased	 ?negative	 ?perceptions	 ?of	 ?dangerousness.	 ?	 ?It	 ?also	 ?explains	 ?the	 ?success	 ?of	 ?the	 ?Royal	 ?Navy?s	 ?TRiM	 ?program	 ?(Gould	 ?et	 ?al.,	 ?2007).	 ?	 ?A	 ?study	 ?by	 ?Eisenberg	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?(2012)	 ?also	 ?supports	 ?this	 ?claim,	 ?again	 ?emphasizing	 ?that	 ?a	 ?combination	 ?of	 ?personal	 ?contact	 ?with	 ?education	 ?is	 ?best,	 ?rather	 ?than	 ?personal	 ?contact	 ?alone.	 ?	 ?Here,	 ?university	 ?students	 ?were	 ?followed	 ?during	 ?one	 ?academic	 ?year	 ?in	 ?order	 ?to	 ?assess	 ?whether	 ?their	 ?attitudes	 ?regarding	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?changed	 ?if	 ?their	 ?roommate	 ?developed	 ?a	 ?mental	 ?illness.	 ?	 ?The	 ?expectation	 ?was	 ?that	 ?stigma	 ?would	 ?decrease	 ?due	 ?to	 ?the	 ?intimate	 ?nature	 ?of	 ?such	 ?a	 ?relationship.	 ?	 ?Surprisingly,	 ?findings	 ?demonstrated	 ?a	 ?general	 ?increase	 ?in	 ?stigma;	 ?however,	 ?it	 ?was	 ?noted	 ?that	 ?the	 ?majority	 ?of	 ?participants	 ?had	 ?little	 ?education	 ?and	 ?experience	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?at	 ?the	 ?study?s	 ?onset,	 ?and	 ?consequently,	 ?may	 ?have	 ?struggled	 ?to	 ?understand	 ?their	 ?roommate?s	 ?altered	 ?behaviour.	 ?	 ?Students	 ?who	 ?had	 ?prior	 ?knowledge	 ?or	 ?experience	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?did	 ?not	 ?follow	 ?the	 ?same	 ?pattern.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?Brown,	 ?Evans	 ?and	 ?Espenschade	 ?(2010)	 ?also	 ?studied	 ?two	 ?stigma	 ?reduction	 ?strategies,	 ?filmed	 ?personal	 ?contact	 ?and	 ?hallucination	 ?simulations,	 ?in	 ?order	 ?to	 ?assess	 ?which	 ?technique	 ?was	 ?more	 ?successful	 ?in	 ?reducing	 ?stigma.	 ?	 ?They	 ?found	 ?that	 ?participants	 ?who	 ?watched	 ?the	 ?film	 ?expressed	 ?a	 ?decrease	 ?in	 ?stigma	 ?and	 ?negative	 ?stereotyping,	 ?while	 ?those	 ?who	 ?underwent	 ?hallucination	 ?simulations	 ?demonstrated	 ?an	 ?increase.	 ?Brown	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?(2010)	 ?interpret	 ?these	 ?results	 ?by	 ?claiming	 ?that	 ?education	 ?about	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?would	 ?have	 ?likely	 ?increased	 ?the	 ?success	 ?of	 ?the	 ?simulation	 ?intervention	 ?since	 ?participants	 ?would	 ?have	 ?been	 ?better	 ?prepared,	 ?and	 ?consequently,	 ?less	 ?frightened	 ?by	 ?it.	 ?	 ?These	 ?findings	 ?suggest	 ?that	 ?education	 ?along	 ?with	 ?initiatives	 ?that	 ?put	 ?a	 ?face	 ?to	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?humanize	 ?the	 ?individual,	 ?and	 ?in	 ?so	 ?doing,	 ?decreases	 ?stigma.	 ?	 ? 36	 ?Restorative	 ?Justice	 ?and	 ?Social	 ?Work	 ?There	 ?are	 ?many	 ?parallels	 ?between	 ?restorative	 ?justice	 ?values	 ?and	 ?those	 ?of	 ?the	 ?social	 ?work	 ?profession.	 ?	 ?As	 ?a	 ?result	 ?there	 ?is	 ?strong	 ?incentive	 ?for	 ?social	 ?workers	 ?to	 ?become	 ?increasingly	 ?involved	 ?in	 ?RJ	 ?practices.	 ?	 ?RJ	 ?exemplifies	 ?notions	 ?of	 ?empowerment	 ?and	 ?self-??determination	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?peacemaking,	 ?empathy	 ?and	 ?a	 ?strengths-??based	 ?approach	 ?(Van	 ?Wormer,	 ?2004).	 ?	 ?The	 ?goal	 ?of	 ?RJ	 ?is	 ?to	 ?reconnect	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?their	 ?communities	 ?rather	 ?than	 ?isolate	 ?and	 ?disown	 ?them	 ?(Van	 ?Wormer,	 ?2004).	 ?	 ?As	 ?a	 ?result	 ?RJ	 ?is	 ?also	 ?rooted	 ?in	 ?values	 ?of	 ?inclusivity	 ?and	 ?acceptance.	 ?	 ?For	 ?social	 ?workers	 ?these	 ?values	 ?should	 ?be	 ?reminiscent	 ?of	 ?our	 ?own.	 ?	 ?The	 ?first	 ?four	 ?core	 ?values	 ?of	 ?the	 ?Canadian	 ?Association	 ?of	 ?Social	 ?Workers	 ?are	 ?1)	 ?respect	 ?for	 ?inherent	 ?dignity	 ?and	 ?worth	 ?of	 ?persons,	 ?2)	 ?pursuit	 ?of	 ?social	 ?justice,	 ?3)	 ?service	 ?to	 ?humanity	 ?and	 ?4)	 ?integrity	 ?of	 ?professional	 ?practice	 ?(Canadian	 ?Association	 ?of	 ?Social	 ?Workers,	 ?2005).	 ?	 ?Restorative	 ?justice	 ?creates	 ?a	 ?platform	 ?that	 ?is	 ?welcoming	 ?of	 ?these	 ?core	 ?values	 ?and	 ?in	 ?so	 ?doing	 ?is	 ?welcoming	 ?of	 ?social	 ?workers.	 ?Restorative	 ?Justice	 ?and	 ?Mental	 ?Health	 ?	 ? The	 ?combination	 ?of	 ?RJ	 ?and	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?is	 ?a	 ?relatively	 ?new	 ?and	 ?unexplored	 ?field	 ?of	 ?practice.	 ?	 ?Although	 ?it	 ?has	 ?been	 ?identified	 ?as	 ?a	 ?possible	 ?measure	 ?for	 ?decreasing	 ?the	 ?overrepresentation	 ?of	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?in	 ?the	 ?criminal	 ?justice	 ?system	 ?(Mental	 ?Health	 ?Commission	 ?of	 ?Canada,	 ?2012),	 ?there	 ?exists	 ?minimal	 ?literature	 ?on	 ?this	 ?topic	 ?and	 ?it	 ?remains	 ?largely	 ?underdeveloped.	 ?	 ?Exploring	 ?the	 ?wisdom	 ?of	 ?RJ	 ?practitioners	 ?who	 ?have	 ?worked	 ?with	 ?service	 ?users	 ?who	 ?have	 ?serious	 ?and	 ?persistent	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?may	 ?yield	 ?important	 ?implications	 ?for	 ?RJ	 ?and	 ?its	 ?relationship	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?services.	 ?	 ?It	 ?may	 ?also	 ?provide	 ?insight	 ?into	 ?the	 ?needs,	 ?skills,	 ?and	 ?capacities	 ?of	 ?those	 ?with	 ?serious	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?and	 ?contribute	 ?to	 ?the	 ?expansion	 ?of	 ?knowledge	 ?for	 ?RJ	 ?practitioners.	 ?	 ?	 ?The	 ?purpose	 ?of	 ?this	 ?study	 ?	 ? 37	 ?was	 ?to	 ?expand	 ?on	 ?this	 ?area	 ?of	 ?practice	 ?by	 ?conducting	 ?three	 ?interviews	 ?with	 ?RJ	 ?practitioners	 ?who	 ?have	 ?processed	 ?cases	 ?with	 ?service	 ?users	 ?who	 ?have	 ?mental	 ?illness.	 ?	 ?This	 ?study	 ?set	 ?out	 ?to	 ?learn	 ?about	 ?their	 ?experiences,	 ?and	 ?to	 ?hear	 ?practitioners?	 ?perspectives	 ?about	 ?conducting	 ?RJ	 ?with	 ?this	 ?population.	 ?	 ?The	 ?hope	 ?was	 ?to	 ?generate	 ?implications	 ?for	 ?social	 ?work	 ?practice	 ?and	 ?practitioner	 ?development.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? 38	 ?Method	 ?This	 ?study	 ?underwent	 ?numerous	 ?revisions	 ?with	 ?regard	 ?to	 ?methodology	 ?and	 ?recruitment.	 ?	 ?These	 ?changes	 ?occurred	 ?largely	 ?due	 ?to	 ?an	 ?unexpected	 ?shortage	 ?of	 ?participants,	 ?pointing	 ?to	 ?a	 ?possible	 ?gap	 ?in	 ?restorative	 ?justice	 ?practice,	 ?and	 ?giving	 ?credence	 ?to	 ?the	 ?novelty	 ?of	 ?this	 ?area	 ?of	 ?research.	 ?	 ?	 ?The	 ?project	 ?launched	 ?with	 ?ambitions	 ?of	 ?narrative	 ?discourse	 ?and	 ?participatory	 ?action.	 ?	 ?Unfortunately,	 ?this	 ?objective	 ?was	 ?eventually	 ?abandoned	 ?as	 ?it	 ?became	 ?clear	 ?that	 ?despite	 ?various	 ?recruitment	 ?strategies,	 ?no	 ?service	 ?users	 ?were	 ?coming	 ?forward	 ?to	 ?be	 ?interviewed.	 ?	 ?Attention	 ?shifted	 ?to	 ?RJ	 ?practitioners,	 ?pursuing	 ?a	 ?curiosity	 ?about	 ?why	 ?service	 ?users	 ?with	 ?serious	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?had	 ?been	 ?so	 ?difficult	 ?to	 ?locate.	 ?	 ?Following	 ?its	 ?final	 ?amendment,	 ?the	 ?study	 ?took	 ?a	 ?qualitative	 ?descriptive	 ?approach,	 ?working	 ?under	 ?the	 ?epistemological	 ?framework	 ?of	 ?critical	 ?theory.	 ?	 ?The	 ?belief	 ?that	 ?research	 ?should	 ?be	 ?used	 ?to	 ?inspire	 ?social	 ?change	 ?was	 ?at	 ?the	 ?core	 ?of	 ?this	 ?endeavor,	 ?as	 ?was	 ?the	 ?desire	 ?for	 ?advocacy	 ?and	 ?promotion	 ?of	 ?social	 ?inclusion	 ?for	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?serious	 ?mental	 ?illness.	 ?	 ?This	 ?study	 ?attempted	 ?to	 ?describe	 ?the	 ?voices	 ?of	 ?participants	 ?with	 ?genuine	 ?authenticity,	 ?subsequently	 ?focusing	 ?on	 ?the	 ?facts,	 ?but	 ?also	 ?situating	 ?them	 ?within	 ?a	 ?larger	 ?context.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?Sampling	 ?Sampling	 ?took	 ?a	 ?purposeful	 ?approach.	 ?	 ?Initial	 ?recruitment	 ?consisted	 ?of	 ?service	 ?users	 ?with	 ?serious	 ?and	 ?persistent	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?who	 ?had	 ?undergone	 ?a	 ?RJ	 ?process.	 ?	 ?Recruitment	 ?flyers	 ?were	 ?distributed	 ?throughout	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?clubhouses	 ?and	 ?services	 ?in	 ?Vancouver	 ?and	 ?the	 ?Lower	 ?Mainland,	 ?specifically	 ?with	 ?the	 ?help	 ?of	 ?agencies	 ?such	 ?as	 ?the	 ?Canadian	 ?Mental	 ?Health	 ?Association-??Vancouver/Burnaby	 ?Branch	 ?and	 ?Fraserside	 ?Community	 ?Service	 ?Society.	 ?	 ?In	 ?addition,	 ?word	 ?about	 ?the	 ?study	 ?was	 ?propagated	 ?amongst	 ?the	 ?RJ	 ?community,	 ?with	 ?the	 ?hopes	 ?that	 ?practitioners	 ?would	 ?pass	 ?information	 ?about	 ?the	 ?study	 ?along	 ?to	 ?service	 ?users	 ?	 ? 39	 ?who	 ?met	 ?criteria.	 ?	 ?Unfortunately	 ?six	 ?months	 ?of	 ?rigorous	 ?recruitment	 ?yielded	 ?no	 ?results,	 ?and	 ?evidence	 ?of	 ?a	 ?major	 ?gap	 ?in	 ?RJ	 ?practice	 ?seemed	 ?to	 ?be	 ?emerging.	 ?	 ?At	 ?the	 ?same	 ?time	 ?it	 ?was	 ?discovered	 ?that	 ?the	 ?UK	 ?appeared	 ?to	 ?be	 ?witnessing	 ?a	 ?major	 ?increase	 ?in	 ?RJ	 ?practice	 ?following	 ?recent	 ?changes	 ?to	 ?legislation,	 ?and	 ?the	 ?landscape	 ?appeared	 ?more	 ?fruitful	 ?for	 ?recruitment.	 ?	 ?Consequently,	 ?recruitment	 ?was	 ?moved	 ?to	 ?the	 ?United	 ?Kingdom,	 ?in	 ?the	 ?hopes	 ?that	 ?insights	 ?and	 ?recommendations	 ?could	 ?be	 ?brought	 ?back	 ?for	 ?RJ	 ?practice	 ?in	 ?Canada.	 ?	 ?	 ?Initial	 ?recruitment	 ?attempts	 ?were	 ?also	 ?discouraging;	 ?no	 ?service	 ?users	 ?came	 ?forward.	 ?	 ?Eventually,	 ?as	 ?recommended	 ?by	 ?Sandelowski	 ?(2000),	 ?recruitment	 ?criteria	 ?were	 ?altered	 ?yet	 ?again	 ?in	 ?order	 ?to	 ?obtain	 ?a	 ?more	 ?variable	 ?sample,	 ?subsequently	 ?encompassing	 ?a	 ?wider	 ?range	 ?of	 ?participants,	 ?including	 ?RJ	 ?practitioners.	 ?	 ?The	 ?final	 ?recruitment	 ?criteria	 ?consisted	 ?of	 ?individuals	 ?over	 ?the	 ?age	 ?of	 ?nineteen,	 ?who	 ?identified	 ?as	 ?being	 ?in	 ?good	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?and	 ?in	 ?recovery,	 ?who	 ?spoke	 ?English	 ?well	 ?enough	 ?to	 ?be	 ?interviewed,	 ?and	 ?who	 ?met	 ?one	 ?of	 ?the	 ?following	 ?criteria:	 ?A)	 ?a	 ?service	 ?user	 ?with	 ?a	 ?previous	 ?diagnosis	 ?of	 ?serious	 ?and	 ?persistent	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?who	 ?had	 ?successfully	 ?completed	 ?a	 ?restorative	 ?justice	 ?process	 ?(success	 ?was	 ?defined	 ?as	 ?completing	 ?the	 ?process,	 ?not	 ?as	 ?verbalizing	 ?satisfaction	 ?or	 ?dissatisfaction	 ?with	 ?the	 ?outcome);	 ?B)	 ?a	 ?service	 ?user	 ?with	 ?a	 ?previous	 ?diagnosis	 ?of	 ?a	 ?serious	 ?and	 ?persistent	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?who	 ?had	 ?not	 ?yet	 ?completed	 ?a	 ?restorative	 ?justice	 ?process	 ?but	 ?had	 ?expressed	 ?interest	 ?in	 ?doing	 ?so;	 ?C)	 ?a	 ?restorative	 ?justice	 ?practitioner	 ?who	 ?had	 ?conducted	 ?at	 ?least	 ?one	 ?restorative	 ?justice	 ?process	 ?with	 ?a	 ?service	 ?user	 ?who	 ?had	 ?serious	 ?and	 ?persistent	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?and;	 ?D)	 ?a	 ?service	 ?user	 ?(victim	 ?or	 ?offender)	 ?who	 ?did	 ?not	 ?have	 ?a	 ?serious	 ?and	 ?persistent	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?but	 ?had	 ?expressed	 ?interest	 ?in	 ?entering	 ?into	 ?an	 ?RJ	 ?process	 ?with	 ?a	 ?person	 ?that	 ?did.	 ?	 ?Three	 ?practitioners	 ?volunteered	 ?to	 ?participate	 ?in	 ?the	 ?study.	 ?	 ?It	 ?remained	 ?unclear	 ?why	 ?there	 ?appeared	 ?to	 ?be	 ?such	 ?a	 ?lack	 ?of	 ?interest	 ?in	 ?the	 ?study,	 ?and	 ?why	 ?only	 ?three	 ?participants	 ?came	 ?	 ? 40	 ?forward.	 ?	 ?There	 ?is	 ?speculation	 ?that	 ?this	 ?may	 ?have	 ?been	 ?representative	 ?of	 ?a	 ?shortage	 ?of	 ?practice	 ?in	 ?this	 ?area,	 ?and	 ?a	 ?subsequent	 ?scarcity	 ?of	 ?individuals	 ?who	 ?have	 ?encountered	 ?serious	 ?and	 ?persistent	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?within	 ?the	 ?context	 ?of	 ?RJ.	 ?	 ?Recruitment	 ?ended	 ?when	 ?time	 ?restrictions	 ?intervened	 ?and	 ?I	 ?returned	 ?to	 ?Canada.	 ?	 ? Participants	 ?were	 ?RJ	 ?practitioners	 ?with	 ?varying	 ?degrees	 ?of	 ?experience.	 ?	 ?All	 ?had	 ?conducted	 ?numerous	 ?RJ	 ?processes,	 ?several	 ?of	 ?them	 ?with	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?serious	 ?and	 ?persistent	 ?mental	 ?illness.	 ?Two	 ?had	 ?primarily	 ?practiced	 ?victim-??offender	 ?conferencing	 ?while	 ?the	 ?third	 ?had	 ?a	 ?strong	 ?background	 ?in	 ?neighbourhood	 ?mediation.	 ?	 ?The	 ?participant	 ?who	 ?practiced	 ?neighbourhood	 ?mediation	 ?was	 ?also	 ?a	 ?RJ	 ?trainer,	 ?and	 ?worked	 ?in	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?outside	 ?of	 ?her	 ?RJ	 ?work.	 ?	 ?All	 ?participants	 ?had	 ?practiced	 ?in	 ?England,	 ?UK.	 ?Data	 ?Collection	 ?	 ? Data	 ?were	 ?collected	 ?using	 ?semi-??structured	 ?interviews.	 ?	 ?Two	 ?interviews	 ?were	 ?conducted	 ?in	 ?person,	 ?at	 ?a	 ?location	 ?of	 ?the	 ?participant?s	 ?choosing.	 ?	 ?The	 ?third	 ?was	 ?conducted	 ?over	 ?the	 ?phone,	 ?as	 ?an	 ?in-??person	 ?interview	 ?was	 ?not	 ?possible.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?All	 ?participants	 ?signed	 ?consent	 ?forms	 ?prior	 ?to	 ?taking	 ?part	 ?in	 ?the	 ?interviews.	 ?	 ?Interviews	 ?lasted	 ?approximately	 ?one	 ?hour	 ?and	 ?were	 ?audio-??recorded.	 ?	 ?As	 ?advised	 ?by	 ?Sandelowski	 ?(2000)	 ?interviews	 ?included	 ?moderately	 ?structured	 ?open-??ended	 ?questions,	 ?and	 ?participants	 ?were	 ?given	 ?opportunity	 ?to	 ?direct	 ?the	 ?conversation.	 ?	 ?Consequently,	 ?interviews	 ?were	 ?variable	 ?and	 ?differed	 ?from	 ?one	 ?another	 ?as	 ?each	 ?participant	 ?led	 ?the	 ?conversation	 ?down	 ?a	 ?slightly	 ?different	 ?path.	 ?	 ?This	 ?was	 ?encouraged	 ?in	 ?order	 ?to	 ?generate	 ?fruitful	 ?data.	 ?	 ?Questions	 ?were	 ?also	 ?continuously	 ?modified	 ?following	 ?each	 ?interview	 ?in	 ?order	 ?to	 ?accommodate	 ?emerging	 ?data.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? 41	 ?Data	 ?Analysis	 ?Qualitative	 ?content	 ?analysis	 ?was	 ?used	 ?for	 ?the	 ?analysis	 ?of	 ?data	 ?(Sandelowski,	 ?2000).	 ?	 ?Effort	 ?was	 ?made	 ?to	 ?ensure	 ?descriptive	 ?and	 ?interpretive	 ?validity.	 ?Data	 ?were	 ?therefore	 ?analyzed	 ?in	 ?a	 ?way	 ?that	 ?authenticated	 ?participant?s	 ?voices	 ?and	 ?stayed	 ?true	 ?to	 ?the	 ?facts.	 ?	 ?Both	 ?verbal	 ?and	 ?visual	 ?data	 ?were	 ?recorded	 ?and	 ?considered.	 ?	 ?I	 ?myself	 ?transcribed	 ?all	 ?interviews,	 ?transcribing	 ?all	 ?words	 ?verbatim.	 ?	 ?This	 ?was	 ?done	 ?in	 ?order	 ?to	 ?become	 ?better	 ?acquainted	 ?with	 ?the	 ?data	 ?and	 ?more	 ?immersed	 ?in	 ?its	 ?content.	 ?	 ?Transcripts	 ?were	 ?later	 ?compared,	 ?and	 ?repeating	 ?ideas	 ?were	 ?noted.	 ?These	 ?were	 ?clustered	 ?into	 ?categories,	 ?and	 ?several	 ?themes	 ?were	 ?identified.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? 42	 ?Findings	 ?Prevalence	 ?of	 ?Mental	 ?Illness	 ?in	 ?RJ	 ?Cases	 ?Prevalence.	 ?	 ?According	 ?to	 ?data	 ?collected	 ?from	 ?interviews,	 ?the	 ?likelihood	 ?for	 ?a	 ?practitioner	 ?to	 ?encounter	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?issues	 ?during	 ?a	 ?restorative	 ?justice	 ?conference	 ?may	 ?be	 ?quite	 ?high.	 ?	 ?Although	 ?the	 ?numbers	 ?vary	 ?and	 ?have	 ?not	 ?been	 ?quantified,	 ?participants	 ?reported	 ?a	 ?prevalence	 ?of	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?that	 ?ranged	 ?from	 ?20%	 ?to	 ?90%.	 ?	 ?One	 ?participant,	 ?here	 ?named	 ?John,	 ?asserted	 ?that	 ?approximately	 ?90%	 ?of	 ?participants	 ?in	 ?his	 ?victim-??offender	 ?conferencing	 ?pilot	 ?project	 ?appeared	 ?to	 ?have	 ?mental	 ?illness,	 ?although	 ?no	 ?data	 ?were	 ?kept	 ?on	 ?this,	 ?resulting	 ?in	 ?a	 ?shortage	 ?of	 ?statistical	 ?figures	 ?to	 ?support	 ?his	 ?claim.	 ?	 ?John	 ?observed	 ?that	 ?many	 ?service	 ?users	 ?in	 ?his	 ?project	 ?had	 ?a	 ?formal	 ?diagnoses,	 ?the	 ?most	 ?prevalent	 ?being	 ?schizophrenia,	 ?followed	 ?by	 ?severe	 ?depression	 ?and	 ?bipolar	 ?disorder.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?Another	 ?participant,	 ?Susan,	 ?stressed	 ?that	 ?she	 ?encountered	 ?numerous	 ?service	 ?users	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?issues	 ?in	 ?her	 ?work	 ?conducting	 ?neighbourhood	 ?mediation.	 ?	 ?She	 ?contended	 ?that	 ?working	 ?with	 ?service	 ?users	 ?who	 ?have	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?is	 ?simply	 ?part	 ?of	 ?the	 ?job.	 ?Link	 ?to	 ?deinstitutionalization.	 ?	 ?Interestingly,	 ?data	 ?also	 ?pointed	 ?to	 ?a	 ?link	 ?between	 ?the	 ?deinstitutionalization	 ?movement	 ?and	 ?an	 ?increase	 ?in	 ?offenders	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?issues.	 ?	 ?One	 ?participant,	 ?Max,	 ?who	 ?was	 ?a	 ?police	 ?officer	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?a	 ?RJ	 ?practitioner,	 ?expressed	 ?that	 ?he	 ?had	 ?witnessed	 ?an	 ?evident	 ?influx	 ?in	 ?the	 ?numbers	 ?of	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?who	 ?had	 ?come	 ?into	 ?contact	 ?with	 ?the	 ?criminal	 ?justice	 ?system.	 ?	 ?This	 ?influx,	 ?he	 ?said,	 ?appeared	 ?to	 ?correlate	 ?with	 ?the	 ?closing	 ?of	 ?psychiatric	 ?institutions	 ?in	 ?the	 ?UK.	 ?	 ?Consequently	 ?he	 ?argued	 ?that	 ?the	 ?numbers	 ?of	 ?offenders	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?issues	 ?eligible	 ?for	 ?victim-??offender	 ?mediation	 ?schemes	 ?likely	 ?also	 ?increased	 ?with	 ?the	 ?change	 ?in	 ?population.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? 43	 ?The	 ?connection	 ?to	 ?the	 ?deinstitutionalization	 ?movement	 ?was	 ?also	 ?discussed	 ?by	 ?Susan,	 ?the	 ?neighbourhood	 ?mediator.	 ?	 ?Susan	 ?explained	 ?that	 ?it	 ?is	 ?customary	 ?to	 ?receive	 ?a	 ?case	 ?in	 ?which	 ?at	 ?least	 ?one	 ?of	 ?the	 ?disputing	 ?parties	 ?has	 ?a	 ?mental	 ?illness,	 ?and	 ?is	 ?evidently	 ?struggling	 ?with	 ?it	 ?while	 ?living	 ?independently.	 ?	 ?She	 ?said	 ?that	 ?these	 ?individuals	 ?can	 ?cause	 ??quite	 ?a	 ?problem?	 ?because	 ?their	 ?lack	 ?of	 ?support	 ?or	 ?treatment	 ?can	 ?become	 ?a	 ?catalyst	 ?for	 ?unusual	 ?behaviours	 ?that	 ?cause	 ?stress	 ?and	 ?disorder.	 ?One	 ?of	 ?the	 ?examples	 ?she	 ?gave	 ?was	 ?of	 ?a	 ?man	 ?who	 ?filed	 ?a	 ?grievance	 ?against	 ?his	 ?neighbours,	 ?complaining	 ?that	 ?their	 ?young	 ?child	 ?cried	 ?loudly	 ?late	 ?into	 ?the	 ?night	 ?thereby	 ?preventing	 ?him	 ?from	 ?sleeping.	 ?	 ?When	 ?the	 ?mediators	 ?arrived	 ?in	 ?an	 ?attempt	 ?to	 ?remedy	 ?the	 ?dispute,	 ?the	 ?mother	 ?of	 ?the	 ?child	 ?was	 ?astounded	 ?at	 ?the	 ?complaint	 ?since	 ?her	 ?baby	 ?was	 ?in	 ?bed	 ?and	 ?asleep	 ?every	 ?night	 ?by	 ?eight	 ?o?clock.	 ?	 ?Susan	 ?and	 ?her	 ?colleague	 ?were	 ?then	 ?faced	 ?with	 ?the	 ?uncomfortable	 ?position	 ?of	 ?trying	 ?to	 ?decide	 ?which	 ?story	 ?was	 ?more	 ?likely:	 ?that	 ?the	 ?mother	 ?was	 ?lying	 ?or	 ?that	 ?the	 ?child	 ?was	 ?in	 ?fact	 ?asleep	 ?by	 ?eight	 ?o?clock	 ?every	 ?night	 ?and	 ?that	 ?perhaps	 ?the	 ?complainant	 ?was	 ?hearing	 ?voices.	 ?	 ?	 ?Another	 ?example	 ?involved	 ?a	 ?man	 ?who	 ?had	 ?been	 ?arguing	 ?with	 ?his	 ?neighbour	 ?about	 ?a	 ?broken	 ?front	 ?gate.	 ?	 ?Unable	 ?to	 ?reach	 ?an	 ?agreement,	 ?the	 ?case	 ?was	 ?referred	 ?to	 ?neighbourhood	 ?mediation	 ?and	 ?a	 ?team	 ?of	 ?practitioners	 ?was	 ?assembled.	 ?	 ?The	 ?mediation	 ?appeared	 ?to	 ?move	 ?along	 ?successfully	 ?and	 ?a	 ?resolution	 ?had	 ?been	 ?agreed	 ?upon,	 ?when	 ?suddenly	 ?the	 ?man	 ?turned	 ?and	 ?said:	 ??Right,	 ?so	 ?then	 ?what	 ?are	 ?we	 ?going	 ?to	 ?do	 ?about	 ?that	 ?front	 ?gate??	 ?as	 ?though	 ?he	 ?had	 ?just	 ?forgotten	 ?or	 ?misunderstood	 ?the	 ?entire	 ?conversation.	 ?	 ?Since	 ?he	 ?had	 ?agreed	 ?to	 ?a	 ?resolution	 ?moments	 ?before,	 ?Susan?s	 ?question	 ?then	 ?became:	 ??What	 ?did	 ?he	 ?agree	 ?to??	 ?These	 ?examples	 ?point	 ?to	 ?some	 ?of	 ?the	 ?complexities	 ?that	 ?restorative	 ?justice	 ?practitioners	 ?must	 ?negotiate	 ?when	 ?working	 ?with	 ?service	 ?users	 ?who	 ?have	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?issues.	 ?	 ?Additionally,	 ?all	 ?three	 ?participants	 ?pointed	 ?out	 ?that	 ?victims	 ?can	 ?have	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?	 ? 44	 ?issues	 ?as	 ?well,	 ?not	 ?just	 ?offenders.	 ?	 ?Although	 ?seemingly	 ?not	 ?as	 ?prevalent	 ?as	 ?the	 ?mental	 ?illnesses	 ?observed	 ?in	 ?offenders	 ?who	 ?took	 ?part	 ?in	 ?the	 ?victim-??offender	 ?mediation	 ?project	 ?discussed	 ?by	 ?John,	 ?there	 ?was	 ?no	 ?doubt	 ?that	 ?victims	 ?could	 ?experience	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?issues	 ?as	 ?well,	 ?most	 ?notably	 ?symptoms	 ?associated	 ?with	 ?post-??traumatic	 ?stress	 ?disorder	 ?(PTSD).	 ?	 ?Max	 ?explained	 ?that	 ?sometimes	 ?the	 ?crime	 ?itself	 ?can	 ?induce	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?issues,	 ?such	 ?as	 ?a	 ?phobic	 ?fear	 ?of	 ?leaving	 ?one?s	 ?home	 ?after	 ?an	 ?assault	 ?or	 ?developing	 ?a	 ?seemingly	 ?compulsive	 ?desire	 ?to	 ?check	 ?and	 ?re-??check	 ?one?s	 ?doors	 ?and	 ?windows	 ?to	 ?make	 ?sure	 ?they	 ?are	 ?locked.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?Drug	 ?use.	 ?	 ?Another	 ?strong	 ?message	 ?that	 ?came	 ?out	 ?of	 ?all	 ?three	 ?interviews	 ?was	 ?that	 ?participants	 ?observed	 ?a	 ?link	 ?between	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?and	 ?drug	 ?use.	 ?	 ?In	 ?fact,	 ?there	 ?was	 ?speculation	 ?that	 ?some	 ?of	 ?the	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?issues	 ?were	 ?drug-??induced,	 ?or	 ?the	 ?result	 ?of	 ?a	 ?previous	 ?history	 ?of	 ?drug	 ?use.	 ?	 ?Max	 ?said:	 ??There	 ?was	 ?this	 ?one	 ?guy	 ?who	 ?kind	 ?of	 ?admitted	 ?that	 ?he?d	 ?been	 ?having	 ?counseling	 ?for	 ?mental	 ?[health]	 ?issues	 ?that	 ?his	 ?counselors	 ?believe	 ?were	 ?brought	 ?on	 ?by	 ?his	 ?use	 ?of	 ?crack	 ?cocaine?.	 ?	 ?Apparently,	 ?the	 ?service	 ?user?s	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?team	 ?believed	 ?that	 ?his	 ?drug	 ?use	 ??inflated	 ?his	 ?psychosis?,	 ?although	 ?it	 ?is	 ?not	 ?clear	 ?whether	 ?there	 ?had	 ?been	 ?a	 ?diagnosed	 ?mental	 ?illnesses	 ?to	 ?begin	 ?with.	 ?	 ?John?s	 ?comments	 ?also	 ?support	 ?this	 ?observation.	 ?	 ?He	 ?said:	 ??There	 ?was	 ?definitely	 ?a	 ?correlation	 ?as	 ?far	 ?as	 ?we	 ?were	 ?concerned	 ?between	 ?the	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?of	 ?the	 ?individuals	 ?and	 ?an	 ?admission	 ?to	 ?drugs,	 ?or	 ?previous	 ?history	 ?of	 ?drug	 ?use?.	 ?	 ?	 ?Lastly	 ?Susan	 ?stated	 ?that	 ?that	 ?she	 ?encountered	 ?addiction	 ?on	 ?a	 ?regular	 ?basis	 ?in	 ?her	 ?work	 ?with	 ?neighbourhood	 ?mediation,	 ?and	 ?certainly	 ?noticed	 ?a	 ?connection	 ?between	 ?drug	 ?use	 ?and	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?issues.	 ?	 ?She	 ?speculated:	 ??The	 ?kind	 ?of	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?problem	 ?which	 ?I	 ?think	 ?is	 ?quite	 ?difficult	 ?to	 ?deal	 ?with	 ?is	 ?addictions.?	 ?	 ?She	 ?then	 ?gave	 ?several	 ?examples	 ?of	 ?	 ? 45	 ?mediations	 ?that	 ?she	 ?had	 ?tried	 ?to	 ?run	 ?unsuccessfully	 ?due	 ?to	 ?the	 ?service	 ?user?s	 ?state	 ?of	 ?intoxication.	 ?Shortage	 ?of	 ?diagnoses.	 ?	 ?Although	 ?John	 ?was	 ?able	 ?to	 ?identity	 ?schizophrenia,	 ?bipolar	 ?disorder	 ?and	 ?severe	 ?depression	 ?as	 ?diagnoses	 ?that	 ?had	 ?been	 ?prevalent	 ?in	 ?his	 ?RJ	 ?project,	 ?all	 ?three	 ?participants	 ?spoke	 ?of	 ?an	 ?overall	 ?shortage	 ?of	 ?formal	 ?diagnoses	 ?and	 ?a	 ?more	 ?intuitive	 ?recognition	 ?that	 ?an	 ?individual	 ?may	 ?be	 ?experiencing	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?issues.	 ?	 ?They	 ?explained	 ?that	 ?formal	 ?diagnostic	 ?labels	 ?are	 ?too	 ?often	 ?unavailable,	 ?especially	 ?in	 ?a	 ?non-??judicial	 ?RJ	 ?process	 ?such	 ?as	 ?neighbourhood	 ?mediation,	 ?yet	 ?practitioners	 ?often	 ?sense	 ?that	 ?the	 ?individual	 ?is	 ?behaving	 ?in	 ?a	 ?way	 ?that	 ?may	 ?be	 ?considered	 ?unusual.	 ?	 ?As	 ?a	 ?result,	 ?it	 ?is	 ?possible	 ?that	 ?RJ	 ?practitioners	 ?are	 ?more	 ?attentive	 ?to	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?symptoms	 ?rather	 ?than	 ?to	 ?diagnostic	 ?labels.	 ?	 ?Two	 ?of	 ?the	 ?three	 ?participants	 ?also	 ?emphasized	 ?the	 ?emotional	 ?rawness	 ?and	 ?vulnerability	 ?that	 ?a	 ?restorative	 ?justice	 ?process	 ?brings	 ?in	 ?and	 ?of	 ?itself.	 ?	 ?John	 ?described	 ?this:	 ??There	 ?is	 ?so	 ?much	 ?scope	 ?for	 ?looking	 ?at	 ?what?s	 ?going	 ?on	 ?in	 ?psychological	 ?terms	 ?in	 ?a	 ?restorative	 ?justice	 ?meeting.	 ?	 ?It?s	 ?just	 ?full	 ?of	 ?such	 ?interesting	 ?behaviour	 ?that	 ?you	 ?don?t	 ?really	 ?get	 ?a	 ?chance	 ?to	 ?observe	 ?in	 ?other	 ?ways?.	 ?	 ?He	 ?explained	 ?that	 ?individuals	 ?often	 ?behave	 ?in	 ?very	 ?erratic	 ?and	 ?unpredictable	 ?ways	 ?during	 ?an	 ?RJ	 ?process,	 ?making	 ?it	 ?difficult	 ?to	 ?differentiate	 ?between	 ?what	 ?is	 ?a	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?and	 ?what	 ?is	 ?an	 ?extremely	 ?emotional	 ?response.	 ?	 ?He	 ?clarified:	 ??It	 ?can	 ?become	 ?very	 ?difficult	 ?to	 ?distinguish	 ?between	 ?a	 ?really	 ?disturbed	 ?emotional	 ?state	 ?and	 ?a	 ?mental	 ?illness.	 ?	 ?Sometimes	 ?people	 ?are	 ?emotionally	 ?so	 ?upset	 ?that	 ?it	 ?could	 ?even	 ?appear	 ?like	 ?a	 ?mental	 ?illness.?	 ?	 ?Consequently	 ?John	 ?believes	 ?that	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?issues	 ?are	 ?very	 ?prevalent,	 ?and	 ?that	 ?RJ	 ?practitioners	 ?need	 ?to	 ?be	 ?comfortable	 ?and	 ?competent	 ?in	 ?working	 ?with	 ?them.	 ?	 ?	 ? 46	 ?Competence	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? The	 ?theme	 ?of	 ?competence	 ?was	 ?recurring	 ?in	 ?all	 ?three	 ?interviews,	 ?and	 ?presented	 ?itself	 ?in	 ?two	 ?forms:	 ?service	 ?user	 ?competence	 ?and	 ?practitioner	 ?competence.	 ?Service	 ?user	 ?competence.	 ?	 ?When	 ?asked	 ?the	 ?question	 ?of	 ?whether	 ?service	 ?users	 ?with	 ?serious	 ?and	 ?persistent	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?lack	 ?that	 ?capacity	 ?to	 ?take	 ?part	 ?in	 ?restorative	 ?justice,	 ?all	 ?three	 ?participants	 ?responded	 ?in	 ?the	 ?negative.	 ?	 ?John	 ?exclaimed:	 ??If	 ?somebody	 ?was	 ?to	 ?say	 ?back	 ?in?pre-??Victorian	 ?times	 ??this	 ?woman	 ?can?t	 ?do	 ?restorative	 ?justice	 ?cuz	 ?her	 ?brain?s	 ?not	 ?big	 ?enough??.today	 ?we?d	 ?leap	 ?all	 ?over	 ?that	 ?and	 ?say	 ?that?s	 ?outrageous.	 ?	 ?Well	 ?it?s	 ?outrageous	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?as	 ?well!?.	 ?	 ?Susan	 ?said:	 ??Rubbish.	 ?You	 ?could	 ?just	 ?look	 ?up	 ?the	 ?Mental	 ?Capacity	 ?Act	 ?yourself?in	 ?there	 ?it	 ?is	 ?defined	 ?who	 ?has	 ?mental	 ?capacity	 ?for	 ?what,	 ?and	 ?I?m	 ?pretty	 ?sure	 ?it	 ?doesn?t	 ?say	 ?that	 ?anybody	 ?with	 ?a	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?issue	 ?is	 ?deemed	 ?incapable.?	 ?John	 ?asserted	 ?that	 ?service	 ?users	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?are	 ?just	 ?as	 ?articulate	 ?as	 ?anyone	 ?else,	 ?and	 ?just	 ?as	 ?capable	 ?of	 ?entering	 ?into	 ?meaningful	 ?dialogue.	 ?	 ?The	 ?only	 ?requirement	 ?that	 ?all	 ?three	 ?participants	 ?identified	 ?was	 ?stability.	 ?	 ?The	 ?service	 ?user	 ?needed	 ?to	 ?be	 ?stable	 ?at	 ?the	 ?time	 ?of	 ?the	 ?RJ	 ?process.	 ?	 ?	 ?Max	 ?and	 ?Susan	 ?said	 ?that	 ?competence	 ?also	 ?depended	 ?on	 ?the	 ?type	 ?of	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?that	 ?the	 ?service	 ?user	 ?has.	 ?	 ?Susan	 ?said:	 ??If	 ?it?s	 ?a	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?problem	 ?like	 ?anxiety	 ?or	 ?depression?.where	 ?people	 ?are	 ?managing	 ?their	 ?emotions?.that?s	 ?usually	 ?perfectly	 ?capable	 ?with	 ?the	 ?right	 ?support,	 ?but	 ?if	 ?people	 ?are	 ?in	 ?a	 ?completely	 ?differently	 ?world	 ?and	 ?interpret	 ?things	 ?in	 ?a	 ?completely	 ?different	 ?way?like	 ?if	 ?somebody?s	 ?very	 ?paranoid?then	 ?they	 ?(the	 ?administrators	 ?in	 ?her	 ?neighbourhood	 ?mediation	 ?program)	 ?would	 ?say	 ?well,	 ?no.?	 ?	 ?The	 ?concern	 ?appeared	 ?to	 ?be	 ?around	 ?communication,	 ?a	 ?worry	 ?that	 ?no	 ?resolution	 ?could	 ?be	 ?made	 ?with	 ?such	 ?a	 ?major	 ?difference	 ?of	 ?opinion	 ?regarding	 ?the	 ?facts	 ?of	 ?the	 ?event.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? 47	 ?Max?s	 ?worry	 ?was	 ?about	 ?safety,	 ?an	 ?issue	 ?that	 ?will	 ?be	 ?discussed	 ?below.	 ?	 ?He	 ?explained	 ?that	 ?as	 ?practitioner	 ?it	 ?is	 ?important	 ?to	 ?him	 ?that	 ?the	 ?individual	 ?with	 ?the	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?not	 ?be	 ?intimidating	 ?or	 ?frightening	 ?to	 ?others,	 ?especially	 ?if	 ?the	 ?victim	 ?is	 ?present.	 ?	 ?However,	 ?both	 ?Max	 ?and	 ?Susan	 ?agreed	 ?that	 ?these	 ?concerns	 ?were	 ?mostly	 ?put	 ?to	 ?rest	 ?once	 ?it	 ?was	 ?established	 ?that	 ?the	 ?person?s	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?was	 ?stable.	 ?Another	 ?major	 ?issue	 ?that	 ?came	 ?up	 ?during	 ?the	 ?discussion	 ?on	 ?service	 ?user	 ?competence	 ?was	 ?the	 ?fact	 ?that	 ?denying	 ?individuals	 ?RJ	 ?on	 ?the	 ?grounds	 ?of	 ?their	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?was	 ?not	 ?in	 ?line	 ?with	 ?RJ	 ?ideology.	 ?	 ?John	 ?pointed	 ?out	 ?that	 ?such	 ?actions	 ?were	 ?disempowering	 ?to	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness,	 ?and	 ?took	 ?opportunities	 ?away	 ?from	 ?victims	 ?and	 ?offenders	 ?who	 ?wanted	 ?to	 ?either	 ?move	 ?on	 ?from	 ?the	 ?crime	 ?or	 ?take	 ?responsibility	 ?for	 ?their	 ?actions.	 ?	 ?Empowerment,	 ?he	 ?pointed	 ?out,	 ?is	 ?at	 ?the	 ?very	 ?core	 ?of	 ?restorative	 ?justice	 ?and	 ?is	 ?the	 ?component	 ?that	 ?makes	 ?restorative	 ?justice	 ?unique.	 ?	 ?Consequently,	 ?taking	 ?such	 ?disempowering	 ?action	 ?and	 ?abusing	 ?one?s	 ?position	 ?as	 ?practitioner	 ?in	 ?this	 ?way	 ?would	 ?be	 ?against	 ?RJ	 ?values.	 ?	 ?Max,	 ?it	 ?seems,	 ?would	 ?have	 ?agreed.	 ?	 ?He	 ?explained	 ?that	 ?restorative	 ?justice	 ?is	 ?primarily	 ?about	 ?listening	 ?and	 ?understanding,	 ?and	 ?that	 ?these	 ?aspirations	 ?remain	 ?the	 ?same	 ?whether	 ?the	 ?individuals	 ?involved	 ?have	 ?a	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?or	 ?not.	 ?	 ?He	 ?asserted	 ?that	 ?the	 ?practitioner?s	 ?role	 ?is	 ?always	 ?to	 ?attempt	 ?to	 ?clarify	 ?the	 ?facts,	 ?and	 ?that	 ?this	 ?process	 ?is	 ?the	 ?same	 ?regardless	 ?of	 ?who	 ?is	 ?participating.	 ?All	 ?three	 ?participants	 ?also	 ?asserted	 ?that	 ?a	 ?good	 ?RJ	 ?practitioner	 ?should	 ?look	 ?at	 ?each	 ?case	 ?individually.	 ?	 ?As	 ?a	 ?result,	 ?no	 ?group	 ?of	 ?people	 ?should	 ?be	 ?eliminated	 ?right	 ?from	 ?the	 ?start.	 ?	 ?This	 ?would	 ?be	 ?unethical.	 ?	 ?Furthermore,	 ?John	 ?emphasized	 ?that	 ?denying	 ?RJ	 ?on	 ?such	 ?grounds	 ?is	 ?likely	 ?the	 ?result	 ?of	 ?fears	 ?and	 ?misgivings	 ?brought	 ?on	 ?by	 ?stereotypes,	 ?such	 ?as	 ?those	 ?	 ? 48	 ?amplified	 ?by	 ?the	 ?media.	 ?	 ?He	 ?said	 ?that	 ?such	 ?statements	 ?are	 ?based	 ?on	 ?assumptions,	 ?and	 ?that	 ?assumptions,	 ?in	 ?his	 ?experience,	 ?are	 ?always	 ?wrong.	 ?	 ?	 ?A	 ?major	 ?issue	 ?that	 ?arose	 ?during	 ?conversations	 ?about	 ?capacity	 ?was	 ?drug	 ?use.	 ?	 ?All	 ?three	 ?participants	 ?pointed	 ?out	 ?that	 ?drug	 ?use	 ?indeed	 ?contributed	 ?to	 ?a	 ?practitioner?s	 ?assessment	 ?regarding	 ?competence.	 ?	 ?Specific	 ?concerns	 ?included:	 ?memory	 ?loss,	 ?such	 ?as	 ?when	 ?the	 ?service	 ?user	 ?committed	 ?a	 ?crime	 ?while	 ?under	 ?the	 ?influence,	 ?lying	 ?in	 ?order	 ?to	 ?hide	 ?a	 ?drug	 ?abuse	 ?problem,	 ?ambivalence	 ?regarding	 ?RJ	 ?appointments	 ?and	 ?attending	 ?RJ	 ?processes	 ?while	 ?intoxicated.	 ?	 ?Susan	 ?recollected	 ?one	 ?case	 ?where	 ?she	 ?was	 ?forced	 ?to	 ?stop	 ?mediation	 ?mid-??process	 ?because	 ?one	 ?of	 ?the	 ?parties	 ?was	 ?so	 ?intoxicated	 ?that	 ?he	 ?was	 ?becoming	 ?a	 ?potential	 ?danger	 ?to	 ?the	 ?other	 ?individual.	 ?	 ?She	 ?said:	 ??Sometimes	 ?people	 ?lie	 ?to	 ?you?sometimes	 ?despite	 ?however	 ?hard	 ?you	 ?try	 ?you	 ?arrive	 ?and	 ?they	 ?are	 ?stoned	 ?or	 ?drunk,	 ?and	 ?you	 ?can?t	 ?really	 ?have	 ?a	 ?meeting	 ?when	 ?somebody?s	 ?stoned	 ?or	 ?drunk?.	 ?	 ?Nonetheless	 ?all	 ?three	 ?practitioners	 ?also	 ?emphasized	 ?that	 ?since	 ?RJ	 ?cases	 ?ought	 ?to	 ?be	 ?selected	 ?on	 ?a	 ?case-??by-??case	 ?basis,	 ?no	 ?individual	 ?should	 ?be	 ?eliminated	 ?due	 ?to	 ?his	 ?or	 ?her	 ?drug	 ?use.	 ?	 ?They	 ?simply	 ?stressed	 ?that	 ?drug	 ?use	 ?brought	 ?forth	 ?concerns	 ?regarding	 ?competence	 ?more	 ?frequently	 ?than	 ?did	 ?serious	 ?and	 ?persistent	 ?mental	 ?illness.	 ?	 ?John	 ?also	 ?added	 ?that	 ?even	 ?if	 ?an	 ?offender	 ?did	 ?not	 ?have	 ?any	 ?recollection	 ?of	 ?the	 ?crime,	 ?a	 ?successful	 ?RJ	 ?process	 ?would	 ?still	 ?be	 ?possible	 ?since	 ?it	 ?would	 ?give	 ?the	 ?offender	 ?an	 ?opportunity	 ?to	 ?explain	 ?the	 ?causal	 ?role	 ?that	 ?his	 ?or	 ?her	 ?drug	 ?use	 ?may	 ?have	 ?played	 ?in	 ?the	 ?event,	 ?and	 ?what	 ?impact	 ?it	 ?had.	 ?John	 ?introduced	 ?a	 ?concept	 ?that	 ?he	 ?referred	 ?to	 ?as	 ??cognitive	 ?dissonance?.	 ?	 ?He	 ?observed	 ?that	 ?many	 ?of	 ?the	 ?offenders	 ?in	 ?his	 ?victim-??offender	 ?mediation	 ?scheme	 ?appeared	 ?to	 ?have	 ?a	 ?shallow	 ?appreciation	 ?of	 ?the	 ?impact	 ?of	 ?their	 ?crime,	 ?psychologically	 ?speaking.	 ?	 ?They	 ?struggled	 ?to	 ?understand	 ?the	 ?emotional	 ?effect	 ?that	 ?their	 ?actions	 ?had	 ?on	 ?their	 ?victim(s).	 ?	 ?	 ? 49	 ?Rather,	 ?they	 ?tended	 ?to	 ?focus	 ?on	 ?the	 ?material	 ?aspect	 ?of	 ?the	 ?event	 ?and	 ?sought	 ?restitution	 ?through	 ?means	 ?such	 ?as	 ?offering	 ?to	 ?return	 ?an	 ?item	 ?that	 ?was	 ?taken,	 ?or	 ?repaying	 ?money	 ?that	 ?had	 ?been	 ?stolen.	 ?	 ?They	 ?were	 ?shocked	 ?to	 ?discover	 ?that	 ?the	 ?victim	 ?cared	 ?little	 ?about	 ?the	 ?money,	 ?but	 ?instead	 ?has	 ?been	 ?emotionally	 ?traumatized	 ?by	 ?the	 ?event.	 ?	 ?According	 ?to	 ?John,	 ?it	 ?wasn?t	 ?until	 ?these	 ?offenders	 ?entered	 ?into	 ?the	 ?RJ	 ?process	 ?that	 ?they	 ?began	 ?learning	 ?about	 ?the	 ?emotional	 ?impact	 ?of	 ?their	 ?crime.	 ?	 ?This	 ?instigated	 ?a	 ?state	 ?of	 ?confusion	 ?and	 ?a	 ?shift	 ?in	 ?their	 ?worldview.	 ?	 ?This	 ?state	 ?of	 ?confusion	 ?is	 ?what	 ?John	 ?calls	 ??cognitive	 ?dissonance?,	 ?and	 ?is	 ?the	 ?time	 ?that	 ?he	 ?believes	 ?real	 ?change	 ?and	 ?healing	 ?can	 ?happen.	 ?A	 ?last	 ?finding	 ?about	 ?service	 ?user	 ?competence	 ?relates	 ?to	 ?a	 ?discussion	 ?about	 ?the	 ?steps	 ?that	 ?would	 ?be	 ?taken	 ?in	 ?order	 ?to	 ?establish	 ?competence	 ?if	 ?a	 ?service	 ?user?s	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?was	 ?in	 ?question.	 ?	 ?John	 ?was	 ?the	 ?only	 ?participant	 ?to	 ?speak	 ?at	 ?length	 ?about	 ?this	 ?issue,	 ?and	 ?said	 ?that	 ?usually	 ?such	 ?a	 ?decision	 ?would	 ?be	 ?left	 ?to	 ?a	 ?psychiatrist.	 ?	 ?Since	 ?RJ	 ?practitioners	 ?are	 ?generally	 ?not	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?workers,	 ?they	 ?are	 ?consequently	 ?not	 ?qualified	 ?to	 ?make	 ?such	 ?assessments	 ?and	 ?should	 ?seek	 ?out	 ?individuals	 ?who	 ?are,	 ?if	 ?there	 ?are	 ?concerns.	 ?	 ?In	 ?the	 ?restorative	 ?justice	 ?project	 ?that	 ?John	 ?had	 ?been	 ?a	 ?part	 ?of,	 ?four	 ?cases	 ?had	 ?been	 ?dismissed	 ?on	 ?the	 ?grounds	 ?of	 ?serious	 ?mental	 ?illness.	 ?	 ?Nevertheless,	 ?all	 ?four	 ?had	 ?been	 ?dismissed	 ?following	 ?a	 ?recommendation	 ?from	 ?the	 ?service	 ?users?	 ?psychiatrists,	 ?who	 ?believed	 ?that	 ?the	 ?RJ	 ?process	 ?would	 ?hinder	 ?their	 ?treatment	 ?and	 ?recovery.	 ?	 ?Importantly	 ?however,	 ?this	 ?decision	 ?was	 ?made	 ?in	 ?collaboration	 ?with	 ?the	 ?psychiatrist,	 ?the	 ?service	 ?user	 ?and	 ?the	 ?practitioner.	 ?	 ?The	 ?service	 ?users	 ?had	 ?input	 ?into	 ?the	 ?decision	 ?and	 ?were	 ?given	 ?opportunity	 ?to	 ?discuss	 ?their	 ?own	 ?views.	 ?	 ?In	 ?these	 ?four	 ?cases,	 ?the	 ?service	 ?users	 ?were	 ?in	 ?agreement	 ?with	 ?the	 ?psychiatrists,	 ?and	 ?no	 ?dispute	 ?ensued.	 ?	 ?Nonetheless,	 ?despite	 ?his	 ?enthusiasm	 ?for	 ?involving	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?serious	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?issues	 ?in	 ?RJ,	 ?John	 ?also	 ?admitted	 ?that	 ?in	 ?case	 ?of	 ?disagreement	 ?between	 ?the	 ?	 ? 50	 ?service	 ?user	 ?and	 ?the	 ?psychiatrist,	 ?most	 ?practitioners,	 ?himself	 ?included,	 ?would	 ?likely	 ?side	 ?with	 ?the	 ?psychiatrist.	 ?	 ?He	 ?explained	 ?that	 ?practitioners	 ?have	 ?safety	 ?and	 ?liability	 ?matters	 ?to	 ?attend	 ?to,	 ?and	 ?as	 ?a	 ?result	 ?would	 ?most	 ?likely	 ?err	 ?on	 ?the	 ?side	 ?of	 ?caution.	 ?	 ?Being	 ?ill	 ?experienced	 ?in	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?assessment	 ?themselves,	 ?they	 ?would	 ?likely	 ?desist	 ?from	 ?taking	 ?on	 ?such	 ?cases.	 ?	 ?Importantly,	 ?he	 ?appeared	 ?optimistic	 ?and	 ?said	 ?that	 ?most	 ?psychiatrists	 ?were	 ?supportive	 ?of	 ?RJ,	 ?as	 ?long	 ?as	 ?the	 ?process	 ?did	 ?not	 ?interfere	 ?with	 ?the	 ?patient?s	 ?treatment	 ?or	 ?recovery.	 ?	 ?He	 ?did	 ?not	 ?feel	 ?that	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?professionals	 ?stood	 ?in	 ?the	 ?way	 ?of	 ?promoting	 ?RJ	 ?amongst	 ?this	 ?population.	 ?	 ?In	 ?fact,	 ?he	 ?pointed	 ?out	 ?that	 ?such	 ?collaboration	 ?between	 ?the	 ?parties	 ?appeared	 ?optimal	 ?for	 ?ensuring	 ?that	 ?everyone	 ?felt	 ?safe	 ?and	 ?comfortable.	 ?	 ?Additionally,	 ?he	 ?stressed	 ?that	 ?the	 ?onus	 ?should	 ?be	 ?on	 ?the	 ?psychiatrist	 ?to	 ?prove	 ?that	 ?the	 ?individual	 ?is	 ?unsafe	 ?or	 ?at	 ?risk	 ?of	 ?decompensating.	 ?	 ?If	 ?the	 ?psychiatrist	 ?is	 ?unable	 ?to	 ?do	 ?so,	 ?the	 ?practitioner	 ?should	 ?assume	 ?that	 ?the	 ?person	 ?is	 ?safe,	 ?and	 ?carry	 ?on	 ?with	 ?the	 ?process.	 ?Practitioner	 ?competence.	 ?	 ?An	 ?unexpected	 ?finding	 ?to	 ?emerge	 ?from	 ?interviews	 ?with	 ?practitioners	 ?showed	 ?that	 ?of	 ?bigger	 ?concern	 ?than	 ?service	 ?user	 ?competence	 ?is	 ?practitioner	 ?competence.	 ?	 ?Practitioners,	 ?it	 ?seems,	 ?may	 ?have	 ?some	 ?serious	 ?trepidations	 ?about	 ?their	 ?ability	 ?and	 ?skill	 ?to	 ?effectively	 ?manage	 ?cases	 ?involving	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?serious	 ?mental	 ?illness.	 ?	 ?This	 ?may	 ?explain,	 ?at	 ?least	 ?in	 ?part,	 ?the	 ?seemingly	 ?small	 ?number	 ?of	 ?RJ	 ?cases	 ?that	 ?are	 ?being	 ?processed	 ?with	 ?individuals	 ?who	 ?have	 ?serious	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?issues.	 ?First,	 ?both	 ?John	 ?and	 ?Max	 ?explained	 ?that	 ?in	 ?order	 ?to	 ?be	 ?a	 ?good	 ?RJ	 ?practitioner	 ?one	 ?must	 ?have	 ?confidence.	 ?	 ?This	 ?confidence	 ?puts	 ?service	 ?users	 ?at	 ?ease,	 ?and	 ?makes	 ?them	 ?feel	 ?that	 ?they	 ?are	 ?being	 ?well	 ?looked	 ?after.	 ?	 ?Max	 ?stressed	 ?the	 ?importance	 ?of	 ?this	 ?quality	 ?by	 ?saying	 ?that	 ?even	 ?if	 ?one	 ?does	 ?not	 ?feel	 ?confident,	 ?one	 ?must	 ?present	 ?with	 ?confidence.	 ?	 ?Confidence,	 ?in	 ?other	 ?words,	 ?can	 ?be	 ?forged.	 ?	 ?Nonetheless,	 ?it	 ?stands	 ?to	 ?reason	 ?that	 ?the	 ?most	 ?confident	 ?RJ	 ?	 ? 51	 ?practitioner	 ?is	 ?one	 ?who	 ?truly	 ?feels	 ?secure	 ?in	 ?his	 ?or	 ?her	 ?ability	 ?to	 ?run	 ?the	 ?process	 ?successfully.	 ?	 ?This	 ?is	 ?likely	 ?the	 ?most	 ?authentic	 ?and	 ?genuine	 ?type	 ?of	 ?confidence,	 ?and	 ?the	 ?type	 ?of	 ?confidence	 ?that	 ?service	 ?users	 ?feel	 ?most	 ?at	 ?ease	 ?with.	 ?Exploring	 ?the	 ?issue	 ?of	 ?practitioner	 ?competence	 ?further,	 ?John	 ?stressed	 ?that	 ?along	 ?with	 ?having	 ?confidence,	 ?the	 ?practitioner	 ?must	 ?believe	 ?in	 ?the	 ?values	 ?of	 ?RJ,	 ?most	 ?notably	 ?in	 ?empowerment.	 ?	 ?According	 ?to	 ?him,	 ?RJ	 ?practice	 ?does	 ?not	 ?require	 ?any	 ?formal	 ?degree	 ?or	 ?education,	 ?but	 ?rather	 ?a	 ?specific	 ?set	 ?of	 ?beliefs	 ?and	 ?values	 ?that	 ?are	 ?congruent	 ?with	 ?the	 ?paradigm.	 ?	 ?He	 ?singled	 ?out	 ?empowerment	 ?and	 ?spoke	 ?about	 ?it	 ?at	 ?length	 ?since	 ?he	 ?believed	 ?that	 ?empowerment	 ?is	 ?what	 ?makes	 ?RJ	 ?unique.	 ?	 ?Empowerment	 ?allows	 ?the	 ?individuals	 ?involved	 ?in	 ?the	 ?event	 ?to	 ?take	 ?charge,	 ?and	 ?consequently	 ?begin	 ?the	 ?journey	 ?toward	 ?healing.	 ?	 ?Max	 ?also	 ?spoke	 ?of	 ?empowerment,	 ?stating	 ?that	 ?as	 ?a	 ?practitioner	 ?he	 ?spends	 ?a	 ?lot	 ?of	 ?time	 ?trying	 ?to	 ?look	 ?like	 ?he	 ?is	 ?doing	 ?nothing	 ?at	 ?all.	 ?	 ?The	 ?practitioner?s	 ?main	 ?purpose,	 ?he	 ?said,	 ?is	 ?to	 ?manage	 ?safety,	 ?while	 ?the	 ?individuals	 ?affected	 ?by	 ?the	 ?crime	 ?are	 ?given	 ?the	 ?power	 ?to	 ?own	 ?the	 ?rest.	 ?An	 ?interesting	 ?point	 ?of	 ?discussion	 ?that	 ?emerged	 ?from	 ?the	 ?interviews	 ?was	 ?that	 ?confidence	 ?in	 ?one?s	 ?ability	 ?as	 ?a	 ?practitioner	 ?was	 ?directly	 ?associated	 ?with	 ?one?s	 ?competence	 ?as	 ?a	 ?practitioner.	 ?	 ?In	 ?other	 ?words,	 ?as	 ?confidence	 ?in	 ?one?s	 ?ability	 ?to	 ?manage	 ?a	 ?successful	 ?RJ	 ?process	 ?grows,	 ?so	 ?does	 ?one?s	 ?competence	 ?as	 ?practitioner.	 ?	 ?Relating	 ?this	 ?to	 ?practice	 ?with	 ?service	 ?users	 ?with	 ?serious	 ?mental	 ?illness,	 ?John	 ?pointed	 ?out	 ?that	 ?having	 ?confidence	 ?in	 ?one?s	 ?ability	 ?to	 ?run	 ?a	 ?RJ	 ?process	 ?successfully	 ?enhances	 ?competence	 ?in	 ?processing	 ?cases	 ?with	 ?this	 ?population.	 ?	 ?Furthermore,	 ?these	 ?findings	 ?suggest	 ?that	 ?confidence	 ?in	 ?one?s	 ?ability	 ?to	 ?proficiently	 ?manage	 ?a	 ?RJ	 ?process	 ?with	 ?a	 ?service	 ?user	 ?who	 ?has	 ?a	 ?serious	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?issue	 ?is	 ?directly	 ?linked	 ?to	 ?one?s	 ?level	 ?of	 ?comfort	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness:	 ?the	 ?higher	 ?the	 ?degree	 ?of	 ?comfort,	 ?the	 ?higher	 ?the	 ?confidence	 ?and	 ?belief	 ?in	 ?one?s	 ?competence.	 ?	 ?Additionally,	 ?findings	 ?	 ? 52	 ?also	 ?suggest	 ?that	 ?an	 ?increased	 ?level	 ?of	 ?comfort	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?may	 ?be	 ?linked	 ?to	 ?an	 ?increased	 ?level	 ?of	 ?personal	 ?contact	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness.	 ?	 ?As	 ?a	 ?result,	 ?it	 ?is	 ?possible	 ?that	 ?an	 ?increased	 ?level	 ?of	 ?personal	 ?contact	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?enhances	 ?one?s	 ?competence	 ?as	 ?practitioner	 ?when	 ?processing	 ?RJ	 ?cases	 ?with	 ?service	 ?users	 ?who	 ?have	 ?serious	 ?and	 ?persistent	 ?mental	 ?illness.	 ?All	 ?three	 ?practitioners	 ?interviewed	 ?in	 ?this	 ?study	 ?had	 ?had	 ?personal	 ?contact	 ?with	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?prior	 ?to	 ?conducting	 ?RJ	 ?processes	 ?with	 ?such	 ?persons.	 ?	 ?Two	 ?of	 ?the	 ?participants	 ?felt	 ?that	 ?their	 ?previous	 ?experience	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?likely	 ?increased	 ?their	 ?level	 ?of	 ?comfort	 ?with	 ?it.	 ?	 ?Susan	 ?did	 ?not	 ?verbalize	 ?such	 ?a	 ?connection,	 ?but	 ?revealed	 ?a	 ?personal	 ?story	 ?that	 ?suggested	 ?that	 ?her	 ?personal	 ?contact	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?might	 ?have	 ?contributed	 ?to	 ?her	 ?skill	 ?in	 ?working	 ?with	 ?this	 ?population.	 ?	 ?All	 ?three	 ?practitioners	 ?said	 ?that	 ?they	 ?felt	 ?quite	 ?comfortable	 ?conducting	 ?RJ	 ?with	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?serious	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?issues,	 ?although	 ?Susan	 ?identified	 ?several	 ?areas	 ?of	 ?concern,	 ?which	 ?will	 ?be	 ?discussed	 ?below.	 ?	 ?Both	 ?John	 ?and	 ?Max	 ?had	 ?served	 ?as	 ?police	 ?officers	 ?prior	 ?to	 ?becoming	 ?RJ	 ?practitioners.	 ?	 ?Both	 ?had	 ?regularly	 ?encountered	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?serious	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?issues	 ?while	 ?at	 ?work;	 ?however	 ?each	 ?also	 ?shared	 ?one	 ?particularly	 ?transformative	 ?experience	 ?that	 ?appeared	 ?fundamental	 ?to	 ?his	 ?understanding	 ?and	 ?comfort	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness.	 ?John	 ?had	 ?no	 ?experience	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?at	 ?the	 ?time	 ?of	 ?his	 ?admission	 ?into	 ?the	 ?police	 ?force.	 ?	 ?As	 ?a	 ?result,	 ?he	 ?was	 ?advised	 ?to	 ?attend	 ?weekly	 ?visits	 ?to	 ?a	 ?local	 ?psychiatric	 ?hospital	 ?throughout	 ?the	 ?course	 ?of	 ?his	 ?training.	 ?	 ?He	 ?began	 ?to	 ?socialize	 ?with	 ?the	 ?patients	 ?there,	 ?and	 ?made	 ?an	 ?effort	 ?to	 ?engage	 ?in	 ?conversations	 ?with	 ?them,	 ?inadvertently	 ?getting	 ?to	 ?know	 ?them	 ?better.	 ?	 ?Although	 ?John	 ?admitted	 ?that	 ?at	 ?times	 ?he	 ?struggled	 ?to	 ?initiate	 ?meaningful	 ?conversation,	 ?he	 ?also	 ?said:	 ??I	 ?got	 ?to	 ?the	 ?point	 ?where	 ?I	 ?could	 ?sit	 ?down	 ?next	 ?to	 ?people	 ?with	 ?	 ? 53	 ?very	 ?severe	 ?mental	 ?disorders	 ?and	 ?talk	 ?to	 ?them??,	 ?later	 ?adding:?	 ?This	 ?made	 ?it	 ?easier	 ?for	 ?me	 ?to	 ?communicate	 ?with	 ?them	 ?when	 ?I	 ?came	 ?across	 ?them	 ?in	 ?the	 ?streets?.	 ?	 ?John	 ?disclosed	 ?that	 ?this	 ?experience	 ?took	 ?away	 ?his	 ?fear	 ?of	 ?mental	 ?illness,	 ?and	 ?made	 ?him	 ?much	 ?more	 ?comfortable	 ?and	 ?understanding	 ?of	 ?it.	 ?	 ? Max	 ?also	 ?recalled	 ?an	 ?incident	 ?that	 ?occurred	 ?early	 ?in	 ?his	 ?career	 ?as	 ?police	 ?officer.	 ?	 ?While	 ?beginning	 ?to	 ?conduct	 ?patrols,	 ?he	 ?came	 ?across	 ?a	 ?man	 ?whose	 ?behaviour	 ?he	 ?found	 ?unusual	 ?and	 ?erratic.	 ?	 ?He	 ?described	 ?the	 ?man	 ?as	 ??quite	 ?a	 ?strange	 ?looking	 ?guy?[who]	 ?obviously	 ?came	 ?from	 ?a	 ?good	 ?family,	 ?[was]	 ?very	 ?very	 ?well	 ?dressed,	 ?but	 ?just	 ?couldn?t	 ?control	 ?himself?.	 ?Although	 ?harmless	 ?at	 ?first,	 ?the	 ?behaviors	 ?appeared	 ?increasingly	 ?menacing	 ?as	 ?the	 ?days	 ?progressed.	 ?	 ?The	 ?man	 ?began	 ?to	 ?smash	 ?glasses,	 ?throw	 ?items	 ?at	 ?moving	 ?vehicles	 ?and	 ?behave	 ?unpredictably.	 ?	 ?	 ?Fearing	 ?violence,	 ?Max	 ?and	 ?his	 ?colleagues	 ?chose	 ?to	 ?intervene,	 ?relocating	 ?him	 ?to	 ?a	 ?place	 ?of	 ?safety.	 ?	 ?They	 ?drove	 ?him	 ?to	 ?a	 ?local	 ?psychiatric	 ?hospital.	 ?	 ?Max,	 ?who	 ?knew	 ?very	 ?little	 ?about	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?at	 ?the	 ?time,	 ?admits	 ?that	 ?he	 ?did	 ?not	 ?treat	 ?this	 ?man	 ?with	 ?a	 ?great	 ?deal	 ?of	 ?kindness	 ?and	 ?compassion.	 ?	 ?He	 ?tearfully	 ?recalled	 ?laughing	 ?at	 ?him,	 ?poking	 ?fun	 ?at	 ?the	 ?man?s	 ?unusual	 ?behaviour	 ?and	 ?making	 ?him	 ?the	 ?running	 ?joke	 ?of	 ?the	 ?drive.	 ?	 ?His	 ?assumption	 ?was	 ?that	 ?the	 ?man	 ?was	 ?so	 ?out	 ?of	 ?touch	 ?with	 ?reality	 ?that	 ?such	 ?mockery	 ?was	 ?acceptable	 ?since	 ?he	 ?didn?t	 ?fully	 ?understand	 ?it	 ?anyway.	 ?	 ?	 ?When	 ?the	 ?police	 ?car	 ?finally	 ?reached	 ?its	 ?destination,	 ?it	 ?was	 ?Max	 ?who	 ?escorted	 ?the	 ?man	 ?out	 ?of	 ?the	 ?police	 ?car.	 ?	 ?Just	 ?as	 ?the	 ?man	 ?was	 ?getting	 ?out	 ?of	 ?the	 ?car,	 ?he	 ?suddenly	 ?turned	 ?toward	 ?Max,	 ?looked	 ?him	 ?square	 ?in	 ?the	 ?eyes	 ?with	 ?a	 ?clear	 ?and	 ?lucid	 ?gaze,	 ?and	 ?said:	 ??You	 ?know	 ?mate,	 ?sometimes	 ?I	 ?wake	 ?up.	 ?	 ?And	 ?you	 ?laughed	 ?at	 ?me.	 ?	 ?I	 ?will	 ?never	 ?forget	 ?that?.	 ?	 ?At	 ?that	 ?moment	 ?Max	 ?realized	 ?that	 ?this	 ?man	 ?was	 ?aware	 ?of	 ?everything	 ?that	 ?had	 ?happened	 ?to	 ?him,	 ?and	 ?was	 ?capable	 ?of	 ?being	 ?just	 ?as	 ?cognizant	 ?and	 ?in	 ?tuned	 ?with	 ?reality	 ?as	 ?Max	 ?was.	 ?	 ?It	 ?also	 ?made	 ?Max	 ?	 ? 54	 ?realize	 ?that	 ?this	 ?was	 ?a	 ?real	 ?person,	 ?an	 ?individual	 ?who	 ?had	 ?a	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?but	 ?whose	 ?mental	 ?state	 ?fluctuated.	 ?	 ?As	 ?these	 ?thoughts	 ?and	 ?realizations	 ?began	 ?coursing	 ?through	 ?his	 ?mind,	 ?Max	 ?began	 ?to	 ?feel	 ?ashamed.	 ?	 ?This	 ?experience	 ?changed	 ?him	 ?forever.	 ?	 ?He	 ?asserts	 ?that	 ?he	 ?never	 ?again	 ?treated	 ?another	 ?person	 ?with	 ?such	 ?disrespect	 ?simply	 ?because	 ?he	 ?or	 ?she	 ?was	 ?different.	 ?	 ?He	 ?never	 ?again	 ?judged	 ?another	 ?person	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness,	 ?and	 ?alleges	 ?that	 ?this	 ?event	 ?inspired	 ?him	 ?seek	 ?out	 ?new	 ?skills	 ?that	 ?would	 ?better	 ?prepare	 ?him	 ?for	 ?working	 ?with	 ?people	 ?who	 ?are	 ?experiencing	 ?mental	 ?illness.	 ?Susan?s	 ?story	 ?was	 ?about	 ?a	 ?family	 ?member	 ?who	 ?had	 ?struggled	 ?with	 ?an	 ?eating	 ?disorder	 ?during	 ?adolescence.	 ?	 ?She	 ?had	 ?witnessed	 ?this	 ?individual	 ?transition	 ?from	 ?being	 ?an	 ?exceptionally	 ?bright	 ?yet	 ?under-??stimulated	 ?and	 ?ignored	 ?teenager,	 ?to	 ?an	 ?ostracized	 ?and	 ?feared	 ?person	 ?with	 ?an	 ?eating	 ?disorder.	 ?	 ?She	 ?said	 ?that	 ?this	 ?family	 ?member	 ?had	 ?been	 ?driven	 ?out	 ?of	 ?school	 ?because	 ?none	 ?of	 ?the	 ?teachers	 ?knew	 ?how	 ?to	 ?handle	 ?her	 ?situation.	 ?	 ?Susan?s	 ?observation	 ?of	 ?the	 ?event	 ?lead	 ?her	 ?to	 ?believe:	 ?	 ??People	 ?sort	 ?of,	 ?you	 ?know,	 ?distance	 ?themselves	 ?because	 ?they	 ?just	 ?don?t	 ?know	 ?what	 ?to	 ?do?.	 ?	 ?Incidentally	 ?Susan	 ?also	 ?revealed	 ?that	 ?she	 ?works	 ?in	 ?a	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?facility,	 ?although	 ?was	 ?quick	 ?to	 ?point	 ?out	 ?that	 ?this	 ?was	 ?simply	 ?a	 ?coincidence.	 ?	 ? In	 ?all	 ?three	 ?cases	 ?the	 ?personal	 ?contact	 ?with	 ?the	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?appeared	 ?to	 ?enhance	 ?the	 ?degree	 ?of	 ?comfort	 ?with	 ?this	 ?population.	 ?	 ?This	 ?degree	 ?of	 ?comfort,	 ?in	 ?turn,	 ?appeared	 ?to	 ?enhance	 ?the	 ?likelihood	 ?of	 ?processing	 ?RJ	 ?cases	 ?involving	 ?service	 ?users	 ?with	 ?serious	 ?mental	 ?illness.	 ?	 ?Despite	 ?this	 ?enthusiasm	 ?however,	 ?Susan	 ?and	 ?Max	 ?also	 ?identified	 ?several	 ?areas	 ?of	 ?concern	 ?regarding	 ?practitioner	 ?capacity	 ?and	 ?skill.	 ?	 ?Their	 ?arguments	 ?were	 ?very	 ?compelling.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? 55	 ?	 ? Susan?s	 ?concerns	 ?centered	 ?on	 ?practitioner	 ?skill,	 ?or	 ?rather,	 ?a	 ?lack	 ?thereof.	 ?	 ?She	 ?explained	 ?that	 ?there	 ?is	 ?a	 ?need	 ?for	 ?practitioners	 ?to	 ?learn	 ?specific	 ?interviewing	 ?skills	 ?for	 ?working	 ?with	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?issues	 ?if	 ?they	 ?hope	 ?to	 ?become	 ?more	 ?proficient	 ?in	 ?this	 ?area	 ?of	 ?practice.	 ?	 ?The	 ?unease,	 ?it	 ?seems,	 ?centers	 ?on	 ?communication,	 ?and	 ?knowing	 ???what	 ?to	 ?do	 ?when	 ?you	 ?encounter	 ?somebody	 ?who	 ?clearly	 ?has	 ?a	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?problem?.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?Several	 ?of	 ?Susan?s	 ?colleagues	 ?shared	 ?these	 ?apprehensions,	 ?and	 ?consequently	 ?requested	 ?that	 ?a	 ?training	 ?session	 ?be	 ?held	 ?on	 ?this	 ?topic.	 ?	 ?Unfortunately,	 ?the	 ?training	 ?proved	 ?disappointing.	 ?	 ?The	 ?workshop	 ?instructor	 ?focused	 ?on	 ?consciousness	 ?raising	 ?and	 ?awareness	 ?rather	 ?than	 ?on	 ?teaching	 ?actual	 ?techniques	 ?and	 ?skills.	 ?	 ?Susan	 ?believes	 ?that	 ?it	 ?is	 ?not	 ?necessary	 ?for	 ?practitioners	 ?to	 ?know	 ?the	 ??length	 ?and	 ?breadth	 ?of	 ?the	 ?entire	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?system?,	 ?but	 ?rather	 ?they	 ?need	 ?to	 ?know	 ??what	 ?you	 ?do	 ?and	 ?what	 ?you	 ?say	 ?if....somebody	 ?is	 ?saying	 ?something	 ?that	 ?clearly	 ?doesn?t	 ?make	 ?sense?.	 ?	 ?	 ?Max	 ?identified	 ?a	 ?similar	 ?area	 ?of	 ?concern.	 ?	 ?He	 ?too	 ?identified	 ?a	 ?need	 ?for	 ?an	 ?increase	 ?in	 ?education	 ?on	 ?this	 ?front,	 ?and	 ?suggested	 ?that	 ?awareness	 ?training	 ?be	 ?incorporated	 ?into	 ?RJ	 ?training	 ?programs.	 ?	 ?He	 ?added	 ?that	 ?such	 ?training	 ?should	 ?be	 ?conducted	 ?by	 ?actual	 ?individuals	 ?who	 ?have	 ?mental	 ?illness,	 ?and	 ?the	 ?skills	 ?taught	 ??in	 ?a	 ?workshop-??kind	 ?environment	 ?where	 ?people	 ?can	 ?turn	 ?around	 ?and	 ?say	 ??well,	 ?what	 ?happens	 ?to	 ?you	 ?when	 ?you	 ?have	 ?a	 ?psychotic	 ?episode?	 ?	 ?How	 ?do	 ?we	 ?[work]	 ?with	 ?[other]	 ?people	 ?with	 ?your	 ?[mental	 ?health]	 ?issues,	 ?and	 ?what	 ?do	 ?you	 ?think	 ?we	 ?should	 ?do??	 ?	 ?He	 ?argued	 ?further	 ?than	 ?there	 ?needs	 ?to	 ?be	 ?a	 ?two-??way	 ?flow	 ?of	 ?information,	 ??because	 ?you	 ?don?t	 ?learn	 ?from	 ?a	 ?national	 ?centre	 ?for	 ?applied	 ?learning	 ?techniques	 ?program;	 ?you	 ?learn	 ?from	 ?someone	 ?that	 ?stands	 ?or	 ?sits	 ?in	 ?front	 ?of	 ?you?.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?Participants	 ?also	 ?expressed	 ?some	 ?criticism	 ?of	 ?RJ	 ?practitioner	 ?training	 ?programs.	 ?	 ?Susan	 ?believes	 ?that	 ?practitioners	 ?are	 ?ill	 ?prepared	 ?for	 ?working	 ?with	 ?service	 ?users	 ?who	 ?have	 ?	 ? 56	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?issues,	 ?and	 ?that	 ?there	 ?is	 ?a	 ?serious	 ?shortage	 ?of	 ?competence	 ?and	 ?skill	 ?in	 ?this	 ?area	 ?of	 ?practice.	 ?	 ?She	 ?pointed	 ?out	 ?that	 ?RJ	 ?training	 ?programs	 ?range	 ?from	 ?one	 ?day	 ?to	 ?three,	 ?with	 ?the	 ?occasional	 ?one	 ?that	 ?lasts	 ?five.	 ?	 ?Susan,	 ?who	 ?is	 ?an	 ?RJ	 ?trainer	 ?herself,	 ?explained	 ?that	 ?the	 ?pressure	 ?to	 ?keep	 ?RJ	 ?training	 ?sessions	 ?short	 ?and	 ?efficient	 ?has	 ?made	 ?it	 ?nearly	 ?impossible	 ?for	 ?practitioners	 ?such	 ?as	 ?her	 ?to	 ?offer	 ?lengthier	 ?and	 ?more	 ?thorough	 ?training	 ?programs.	 ?	 ?When	 ?asked	 ?about	 ?whether	 ?she	 ?had	 ?received	 ?any	 ?RJ	 ?training	 ?specific	 ?to	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?aside	 ?from	 ?the	 ?workshop	 ?mentioned	 ?above,	 ?the	 ?answer	 ?was	 ?no.	 ?	 ?Furthermore,	 ?she	 ?stressed	 ?that	 ?as	 ?a	 ?result	 ?of	 ?these	 ?shortcomings,	 ?practitioners	 ?who	 ?feel	 ?inept	 ?in	 ?this	 ?area	 ?of	 ?practice	 ?likely	 ?dismiss	 ?such	 ?cases	 ?altogether.	 ?	 ?Max	 ?and	 ?John	 ?supported	 ?this	 ?outlook,	 ?stating	 ?that	 ?fear	 ?and	 ?lack	 ?of	 ?confidence	 ?in	 ?one?s	 ?ability	 ?to	 ?manage	 ?such	 ?a	 ?case	 ?skillfully	 ?likely	 ?contribute	 ?to	 ?the	 ?rejection	 ?of	 ?cases	 ?involving	 ?service	 ?users	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?issues.	 ?	 ? John	 ?and	 ?Max	 ?shared	 ?some	 ?of	 ?Susan?s	 ?concerns	 ?regarding	 ?RJ	 ?training.	 ?	 ?Both	 ?criticized	 ?it	 ?for	 ?being	 ?too	 ?short,	 ?too	 ?basic	 ?and	 ?consequently	 ?insufficient.	 ?	 ?When	 ?asked	 ?specifically	 ?about	 ?training	 ?on	 ?mental	 ?health,	 ?John	 ?commented:	 ??The	 ?average	 ?training	 ?does	 ?not	 ?set	 ?out	 ?to	 ?train	 ?them	 ?in	 ?dealing	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?health?.	 ?	 ?Like	 ?Susan,	 ?he	 ?explained	 ?that	 ?most	 ?RJ	 ?training	 ?sessions	 ?last	 ?three	 ?days	 ?to	 ?one	 ?week,	 ?and	 ?tend	 ?to	 ?focus	 ?on	 ?the	 ?restorative	 ?justice	 ?process	 ?itself,	 ?and	 ?not	 ?on	 ?skills.	 ?	 ?He	 ?also	 ?explained	 ?that	 ?these	 ?sessions	 ?neglect	 ?to	 ?incorporate	 ?a	 ?teaching	 ?component	 ?on	 ?victim?s	 ?needs,	 ?let	 ?alone	 ?the	 ?needs	 ?of	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?issues.	 ?	 ?Max?s	 ?testimony	 ?supported	 ?this	 ?stance.	 ?He	 ?himself	 ?received	 ?zero	 ?training	 ?on	 ?mental	 ?health,	 ?and	 ?attributes	 ?his	 ?knowledge	 ?and	 ?skill	 ?in	 ?this	 ?area	 ?to	 ?personal	 ?contact	 ?with	 ?individuals	 ?who	 ?have	 ?mental	 ?illness,	 ?and	 ?to	 ?his	 ?years	 ?of	 ?experience	 ?serving	 ?as	 ?a	 ?police	 ?officer.	 ?	 ?Lastly,	 ?all	 ?three	 ?participants	 ?said	 ?that	 ?there	 ?were	 ?many	 ?RJ	 ?practitioners	 ?in	 ?the	 ?UK	 ?	 ? 57	 ?who	 ?had	 ?been	 ?through	 ?training	 ?but	 ?had	 ?little	 ?or	 ?no	 ?experience	 ?conducting	 ?RJ	 ?processes	 ?outside	 ?of	 ?it.	 ?	 ?As	 ?a	 ?result,	 ?there	 ?may	 ?be	 ?many	 ?RJ	 ?practitioners	 ?who	 ?are	 ?simply	 ?inexperienced.	 ?Safety	 ?and	 ?Risk	 ?Defining	 ?and	 ?determining	 ?safety.	 ?	 ?Without	 ?doubt	 ?one	 ?of	 ?the	 ?major	 ?concerns	 ?for	 ?RJ	 ?practitioners	 ?is	 ?safety.	 ?	 ?This	 ?may	 ?be	 ?especially	 ?true	 ?in	 ?victim-??offender	 ?conferences,	 ?such	 ?as	 ?those	 ?conducted	 ?by	 ?John	 ?and	 ?Max,	 ?although	 ?it	 ?stands	 ?to	 ?reason	 ?that	 ?safety	 ?is	 ?universally	 ?important	 ?to	 ?all	 ?RJ	 ?practitioners.	 ?	 ?According	 ?to	 ?Max,	 ?safety	 ?encompasses	 ?both	 ?the	 ?physical	 ?and	 ?emotional	 ?wellbeing	 ?of	 ?all	 ?participants.	 ?	 ?It	 ?is	 ?not	 ?sufficient	 ?that	 ?participants	 ?are	 ?kept	 ?physically	 ?safe,	 ?but	 ?also	 ?that	 ?retraumatization	 ?and	 ?emotional	 ?injury	 ?are	 ?prevented.	 ?	 ? Each	 ?participant	 ?emphasized	 ?the	 ?importance	 ?of	 ?safety	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?the	 ?need	 ?to	 ?assess	 ?safety	 ?before	 ?the	 ?commencement	 ?of	 ?any	 ?RJ	 ?process.	 ?	 ?Participants	 ?explained	 ?that	 ?they	 ?performed	 ?safety	 ?appraisals	 ?prior	 ?to	 ?accepting	 ?a	 ?case.	 ?	 ?These	 ?assessments	 ?make	 ?up	 ?one	 ?component	 ?of	 ?the	 ?preparation	 ?stage,	 ?and	 ?provide	 ?space	 ?for	 ?the	 ?practitioner	 ?to	 ?establish	 ?whether	 ?the	 ?case	 ?is	 ?one	 ?that	 ?he	 ?or	 ?she	 ?can	 ?safely	 ?manage.	 ?	 ?One	 ?of	 ?the	 ?major	 ?elements	 ?of	 ?such	 ?a	 ?safety	 ?assessment	 ?is	 ?the	 ?evaluation	 ?of	 ?risk.	 ?	 ? Susan	 ?was	 ?the	 ?only	 ?participant	 ?to	 ?admit	 ?that	 ?her	 ?power	 ?in	 ?conducting	 ?risk	 ?assessments	 ?was	 ?minimal	 ?since	 ?cases	 ?were	 ?referred	 ?to	 ?her	 ?through	 ?an	 ?administrative	 ?authority.	 ?	 ?She	 ?said	 ?that	 ?this	 ?caused	 ?quite	 ?a	 ?problem,	 ?since	 ?it	 ?often	 ?instigated	 ?a	 ?situation	 ?in	 ?which	 ?she	 ?and	 ?her	 ?colleagues	 ?arrived	 ?at	 ?mediation	 ?ill	 ?prepared.	 ?	 ?She	 ?said	 ?that	 ?they	 ?regularly	 ?received	 ??poor	 ?quality	 ?information?,	 ?and	 ?that	 ?this	 ?made	 ?it	 ?particularly	 ?difficult	 ?to	 ?manage	 ?safety,	 ?especially	 ?when	 ?working	 ?with	 ?individuals	 ?who	 ?were	 ?living	 ?with	 ?addictions.	 ?	 ?	 ?Nonetheless	 ?her	 ?assessment	 ?of	 ?risk	 ?occurred	 ?primarily	 ?at	 ?the	 ?time	 ?of	 ?mediation,	 ?and	 ?included	 ?elements	 ?such	 ?as	 ?state	 ?of	 ?sobriety,	 ?emotional	 ?and	 ?physical	 ?safety	 ?for	 ?service	 ?users	 ?	 ? 58	 ?and	 ?mental	 ?stability.	 ?	 ?Additionally,	 ?as	 ?mentioned	 ?previously,	 ?Susan	 ?has	 ?not	 ?been	 ?not	 ?afraid	 ?to	 ?use	 ?her	 ?power	 ?as	 ?practitioner	 ?to	 ?put	 ?an	 ?end	 ?to	 ?proceedings	 ?once	 ?she	 ?feels	 ?that	 ?an	 ?individual?s	 ?demeanor	 ?or	 ?behaviour	 ?is	 ?upsetting	 ?to	 ?the	 ?other	 ?party.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? John	 ?said	 ?that	 ?he	 ?looks	 ?at	 ?factors	 ?such	 ?as	 ?power	 ?imbalance,	 ?violence,	 ?probability	 ?of	 ?victim	 ?revictimization,	 ?and	 ?probability	 ?of	 ?offender	 ?persecution.	 ?	 ?Additionally	 ?he	 ?acknowledged	 ?that	 ?conducting	 ?risk	 ?assessments	 ?can	 ?be	 ?disempowering	 ?to	 ?service	 ?users	 ?and	 ?should	 ?be	 ?kept	 ?to	 ?a	 ?minimum.	 ?	 ?Nonetheless	 ?he	 ?asserted:	 ?	 ??The	 ?primary	 ?task	 ?of	 ?a	 ?facilitator	 ?is	 ?safety?.	 ?Risk:	 ?aversion	 ?versus	 ?management.	 ?	 ?Interestingly,	 ?despite	 ?the	 ?emphasis	 ?that	 ?all	 ?participants	 ?placed	 ?on	 ?safety,	 ?they	 ?also	 ?declared	 ?that	 ?risk	 ?can	 ?often	 ?be	 ?managed.	 ?	 ?John	 ?explained:	 ??The	 ?issue	 ?in	 ?all	 ?the	 ?principles	 ?is	 ?only	 ?about	 ??is	 ?it	 ?safe?.	 ?	 ?And	 ?so	 ?many	 ?people	 ?are	 ?safe?.	 ?	 ?Consequently,	 ?all	 ?three	 ?participants	 ?cautioned	 ?against	 ?being	 ?risk	 ?aversive.	 ?	 ?They	 ?all	 ?felt	 ?that	 ?their	 ?colleagues	 ?have	 ?become	 ?so	 ?fearful	 ?of	 ?risk	 ?that	 ?practitioners	 ?are	 ?more	 ?likely	 ?to	 ?reject	 ?a	 ?case	 ?than	 ?engage	 ?in	 ?a	 ?RJ	 ?process	 ?that	 ?appears	 ?even	 ?minimally	 ?risky.	 ?	 ?Susan	 ?said	 ?that	 ?she	 ?had	 ?one	 ?group	 ?refuse	 ?to	 ?role-??play	 ?a	 ?RJ	 ?scenario	 ?during	 ?training	 ?because	 ?they	 ?feared	 ?it	 ?was	 ?too	 ?perilous.	 ?	 ?It	 ?was	 ?a	 ?role-??play	 ?meant	 ?to	 ?be	 ?challenging,	 ?but	 ?by	 ?no	 ?means	 ?too	 ?risky	 ?to	 ?undertake.	 ?	 ?Relating	 ?this	 ?to	 ?mental	 ?illness,	 ?all	 ?three	 ?participants	 ?agreed	 ?that	 ?practitioners	 ?who	 ?feel	 ?incompetent	 ?working	 ?with	 ?service	 ?users	 ?who	 ?have	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?issues	 ?are	 ?likely	 ?to	 ?appraise	 ?the	 ?risk	 ?of	 ?taking	 ?on	 ?such	 ?a	 ?case	 ?as	 ?too	 ?high,	 ?and	 ?subsequently	 ?reject	 ?it.	 ?	 ?	 ?Fortunately,	 ?participants	 ?in	 ?this	 ?study	 ?identified	 ?several	 ?methods	 ?that	 ?could	 ?be	 ?used	 ?to	 ?minimize	 ?any	 ?risk	 ?specific	 ?to	 ?service	 ?users	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness.	 ?	 ? First,	 ?both	 ?John	 ?and	 ?Susan	 ?identified	 ?support	 ?persons	 ?as	 ?a	 ?good	 ?resource.	 ?	 ?Specifically,	 ?both	 ?recalled	 ?RJ	 ?cases	 ?they	 ?had	 ?processed	 ?where	 ?the	 ?service	 ?users	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?	 ? 59	 ?illness	 ?or	 ?addictions	 ?had	 ?invited	 ?their	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?or	 ?addictions	 ?workers	 ?to	 ?the	 ?RJ	 ?conference.	 ?	 ?This	 ?proved	 ?very	 ?successful.	 ?	 ?Other	 ?support	 ?persons	 ?that	 ?John	 ?and	 ?Susan	 ?spoke	 ?of	 ?included	 ?family	 ?members	 ?and	 ?friends.	 ?	 ?The	 ?common	 ?theme	 ?appeared	 ?to	 ?be	 ?the	 ?presence	 ?of	 ?people	 ?who	 ?would	 ?provide	 ?emotional	 ?support	 ?and	 ?understanding.	 ?	 ? A	 ?second	 ?resource	 ?that	 ?John	 ?identified	 ?was	 ?partnership	 ?with	 ?psychiatrists.	 ?	 ?He	 ?said	 ?that	 ?he	 ?collaborated	 ?extensively	 ?with	 ?psychiatrists	 ?throughout	 ?his	 ?work	 ?on	 ?the	 ?RJ	 ?project,	 ?and	 ?that	 ?psychiatrists	 ?were	 ?a	 ?good	 ?resource	 ?for	 ?information.	 ?	 ?They	 ?provided	 ?practitioners	 ?with	 ?education	 ?about	 ?mental	 ?illness,	 ?and	 ?were	 ?able	 ?to	 ?relay	 ?information	 ?to	 ?practitioners	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?to	 ?patients.	 ?	 ?Just	 ?as	 ?psychiatrists	 ?were	 ?available	 ?to	 ?educate	 ?practitioners,	 ?they	 ?were	 ?also	 ?a	 ?good	 ?resource	 ?for	 ?informing	 ?service	 ?users	 ?about	 ?RJ	 ?and	 ?preparing	 ?them	 ?for	 ?the	 ?upcoming	 ?proceedings.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? Yet	 ?another	 ?method	 ?for	 ?reducing	 ?risk	 ?that	 ?all	 ?three	 ?participants	 ?spoke	 ?of	 ?was	 ?the	 ?acquisition	 ?of	 ?information.	 ?	 ?Specifically,	 ?participants	 ?emphasized	 ?the	 ?importance	 ?of	 ?practitioners	 ?being	 ?sufficiently	 ?informed.	 ?	 ?This	 ?was	 ?important	 ?for	 ?a	 ?number	 ?of	 ?reasons,	 ?primarily	 ?because	 ?an	 ?informed	 ?practitioner	 ?could	 ?pass	 ?information	 ?on	 ?to	 ?service	 ?users	 ?during	 ?the	 ?preparatory	 ?stage	 ?of	 ?the	 ?process.	 ?	 ?Max	 ?explained:	 ??If	 ?we	 ?have	 ?the	 ?full	 ?facts,	 ?then	 ?I	 ?can	 ?give	 ?the	 ?full	 ?facts	 ?[to	 ?the	 ?service	 ?users]?.	 ?	 ?He	 ?also	 ?said	 ?that	 ?having	 ?such	 ?information	 ?provides	 ?an	 ?opportunity	 ?for	 ?practitioners	 ?to	 ?discuss	 ?any	 ?potential	 ?risks.	 ?	 ?John	 ?recalled	 ?a	 ?case	 ?in	 ?which	 ?the	 ?service	 ?user	 ?who	 ?had	 ?a	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?behaved	 ?in	 ?a	 ?way	 ?that	 ?could	 ?be	 ?interpreted	 ?as	 ?intimidating,	 ?even	 ?though	 ?it	 ?was	 ?actually	 ?harmless	 ?and	 ?safe.	 ?	 ?John	 ?explained:	 ??We	 ?handled	 ?that	 ?by	 ?just	 ?telling	 ?the	 ?victim	 ?what	 ?the	 ?guy	 ?did.	 ?	 ?And	 ?then	 ?it	 ?became	 ?less	 ?of	 ?an	 ?issue.	 ?	 ?I	 ?mean,	 ?yes,	 ?it	 ?was	 ?intimidating,	 ?but	 ?we	 ?were	 ?able	 ?to	 ?say	 ??	 ?this	 ?is	 ?how	 ?he	 ?behaved	 ?in	 ?our	 ?preparatory	 ?interview,	 ?we	 ?found	 ?it	 ?a	 ?little	 ?bit	 ?uncomfortable	 ?at	 ?certain	 ?times,	 ?and	 ?you	 ?	 ? 60	 ?may	 ?find	 ?it	 ?uncomfortable	 ?too,	 ?so	 ?do	 ?you	 ?still	 ?want	 ?to	 ?meet	 ?the	 ?guy??	 ?	 ?In	 ?so	 ?doing,	 ?the	 ?practitioner	 ?was	 ?able	 ?to	 ?ensure	 ?the	 ?other	 ?party	 ?that	 ?the	 ?individual	 ?was	 ?safe,	 ?and	 ?that	 ?his	 ?or	 ?her	 ?unusual	 ?behaviour	 ?was	 ?nothing	 ?to	 ?be	 ?afraid	 ?of.	 ?	 ?It	 ?becomes	 ?a	 ?matter	 ?of	 ?knowing	 ?what	 ?to	 ?expect,	 ?and	 ?knowing	 ?what	 ?is	 ?expected.	 ?	 ?	 ?Max	 ?and	 ?John	 ?both	 ?said	 ?that	 ?as	 ?long	 ?as	 ?all	 ?service	 ?users	 ?are	 ?prepared,	 ?aware	 ?and	 ?comfortable	 ?with	 ?entering	 ?into	 ?the	 ?RJ	 ?process,	 ?there	 ?is	 ??absolutely	 ?no	 ?problem?.	 ?	 ? Susan	 ?also	 ?discussed	 ?the	 ?benefits	 ?that	 ?come	 ?with	 ?being	 ?informed,	 ?and	 ?the	 ?risk	 ?management	 ?that	 ?she	 ?can	 ?consequently	 ?do	 ?once	 ?she	 ?has	 ?all	 ?the	 ?right	 ?information.	 ?	 ?For	 ?example,	 ?she	 ?explained	 ?that	 ?when	 ?she	 ?knows	 ?that	 ?a	 ?person	 ?has	 ?an	 ?addiction,	 ?she	 ?is	 ?able	 ?to	 ?have	 ?a	 ?conversation	 ?with	 ?that	 ?individual	 ?about	 ?needs	 ?and	 ?supports,	 ?and	 ?ask	 ?them	 ?to	 ?come	 ?to	 ?the	 ?mediation	 ?sober,	 ?if	 ?possible.	 ?	 ?It	 ?also	 ?gives	 ?her	 ?the	 ?opportunity	 ?to	 ?prepare	 ?the	 ?room	 ?in	 ?a	 ?specific	 ?way,	 ?in	 ?order	 ?to	 ?accommodate	 ?that	 ?person?s	 ?needs	 ?and	 ?comforts.	 ?	 ?For	 ?example,	 ?she	 ?often	 ?seats	 ?heavy	 ?smokers	 ?next	 ?to	 ?windows	 ?and	 ?doors,	 ?allowing	 ?them	 ?space	 ?and	 ?opportunity	 ?to	 ?leave	 ?if	 ?they	 ?feel	 ?that	 ?they	 ?are	 ?struggling	 ?with	 ?abstinence	 ?during	 ?the	 ?mediation.	 ?	 ?She	 ?says	 ?that	 ?these	 ?small	 ?gestures	 ?enhance	 ?the	 ?likelihood	 ?that	 ?the	 ?individual	 ?will	 ?participate	 ?and	 ?see	 ?the	 ?process	 ?through	 ?to	 ?completion.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? Participants	 ?also	 ?spoke	 ?of	 ?confidence	 ?as	 ?a	 ?factor	 ?that	 ?increased	 ?one?s	 ?willingness	 ?to	 ?run	 ?a	 ??risky?	 ?RJ	 ?case:	 ?more	 ?specifically,	 ?confidence	 ?in	 ?one?s	 ?ability	 ?to	 ?mange	 ?such	 ?a	 ?case	 ?safely.	 ?	 ?Such	 ?confidence,	 ?it	 ?would	 ?seem,	 ?appears	 ?associated	 ?yet	 ?again	 ?with	 ?one?s	 ?competence	 ?as	 ?practitioner,	 ?and	 ?one?s	 ?comfort	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness.	 ?	 ?Having	 ?increased	 ?confidence	 ?in	 ?one?s	 ?ability	 ?to	 ?manage	 ?a	 ?RJ	 ?case	 ?with	 ?an	 ?individual	 ?who	 ?has	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?appears	 ?to	 ?be	 ?associated	 ?with	 ?a	 ?belief	 ?in	 ?one?s	 ?competence	 ?to	 ?do	 ?so.	 ?	 ?It	 ?stands	 ?to	 ?reason	 ?that	 ?a	 ?practitioner	 ?who	 ?feels	 ?both	 ?confident	 ?and	 ?competent	 ?would	 ?be	 ?more	 ?willing	 ?to	 ?take	 ?on	 ?	 ? 61	 ?risk,	 ?or	 ?perceive	 ?the	 ?situation	 ?as	 ?less	 ?risky	 ?than	 ?a	 ?practitioner	 ?who	 ?does	 ?not	 ?have	 ?such	 ?confidence,	 ?competence	 ?and	 ?experience.	 ?	 ?John	 ?commented:	 ??There	 ?are	 ?so	 ?many	 ?benefits	 ?to	 ?the	 ?process.	 ?	 ?Nobody	 ?wants	 ?to	 ?do	 ?wrong,	 ?but	 ?there	 ?are	 ?so	 ?many	 ?benefits	 ?that	 ?if	 ?we	 ?just	 ?decline	 ?to	 ?do	 ?it,	 ?on	 ?the	 ?slightest	 ?probability	 ?of	 ?risk,	 ?then	 ?we	 ?would	 ?be	 ?doing	 ?victims	 ?and	 ?offenders	 ?in	 ?many	 ?cases	 ?a	 ?disservice?.	 ?	 ?Susan	 ?ended	 ?the	 ?discussion	 ?on	 ?risk	 ?by	 ?saying	 ?that	 ?rather	 ?than	 ?focusing	 ?on	 ?the	 ?question:	 ??What	 ?is	 ?the	 ?risk	 ?of	 ?processing	 ?this	 ?RJ	 ?case?,	 ?it	 ?is	 ?equally	 ?important	 ?for	 ?practitioners	 ?to	 ?ask:	 ??What	 ?is	 ?the	 ?risk	 ?of	 ?not	 ?doing	 ?it?.	 ?Stigma	 ?and	 ?the	 ?Normalization	 ?of	 ?Mental	 ?Illness	 ?Findings	 ?suggest	 ?that	 ?there	 ?may	 ?be	 ?a	 ?connection	 ?between	 ?restorative	 ?justice	 ?and	 ?combating	 ?stigma.	 ?	 ?This	 ?connection	 ?appears	 ?to	 ?exist	 ?on	 ?two	 ?levels.	 ?	 ?Personal	 ?contact	 ?and	 ?education	 ?as	 ?tools	 ?for	 ?increasing	 ?use	 ?of	 ?RJ.	 ?	 ?First,	 ?it	 ?may	 ?be	 ?possible	 ?that	 ?increasing	 ?personal	 ?contact	 ?with	 ?individuals	 ?who	 ?have	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?enhances	 ?the	 ?competence	 ?of	 ?practitioners,	 ?and	 ?in	 ?so	 ?doing	 ?augments	 ?the	 ?usage	 ?of	 ?RJ	 ?with	 ?this	 ?population.	 ?	 ?All	 ?three	 ?participants	 ?appeared	 ?to	 ?have	 ?a	 ?reasonably	 ?good	 ?understanding	 ?of	 ?mental	 ?illness,	 ?however	 ?more	 ?importantly;	 ?they	 ?all	 ?had	 ?an	 ?understanding	 ?that	 ?came	 ?from	 ?a	 ?place	 ?of	 ?compassion	 ?and	 ?empathy.	 ?	 ?This	 ?understanding	 ?may	 ?be	 ?directly	 ?linked	 ?to	 ?stories	 ?of	 ?personal	 ?contact	 ?with	 ?individuals	 ?who	 ?have	 ?mental	 ?illness.	 ?One	 ?might	 ?argue	 ?that	 ?interviewees	 ?experienced	 ?a	 ?reduction	 ?in	 ?stigma	 ?as	 ?an	 ?outcome	 ?of	 ?their	 ?personal	 ?experience.	 ?	 ?Hence,	 ?it	 ?was	 ?not	 ?surprising	 ?that	 ?when	 ?participants	 ?were	 ?asked	 ?if	 ?they	 ?thought	 ?that	 ?including	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?training	 ?and	 ?increasingly	 ?personal	 ?contact	 ?with	 ?individuals	 ?who	 ?have	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?would	 ?increase	 ?the	 ?likelihood	 ?of	 ?practitioners	 ?processing	 ?RJ	 ?cases	 ?with	 ?this	 ?population,	 ?all	 ?responded	 ?in	 ?the	 ?affirmative.	 ?	 ?Their	 ?experiences,	 ?it	 ?would	 ?seem,	 ?reduced	 ?their	 ?fear	 ?and	 ?apprehension	 ?to	 ?a	 ?point	 ?where	 ?they	 ?became	 ?able	 ?to	 ?comfortably	 ?work	 ?with	 ?	 ? 62	 ?service	 ?users	 ?who	 ?have	 ?mental	 ?illness,	 ?despite	 ?certain	 ?trepidations	 ?and	 ?concerns,	 ?such	 ?as	 ?those	 ?emphasized	 ?by	 ?Susan	 ?and	 ?Max.	 ?	 ?	 ? John	 ?was	 ?very	 ?vocal	 ?on	 ?this	 ?issue	 ?and	 ?agreed	 ?that	 ?personal	 ?contact	 ?was	 ?a	 ?very	 ?effective	 ?way	 ?of	 ?reducing	 ?stigma.	 ?	 ?He	 ?also	 ?agreed	 ?that	 ?exposing	 ?practitioners	 ?to	 ?personal	 ?contact	 ?with	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness,	 ?such	 ?as	 ?through	 ?volunteering	 ?at	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?centers,	 ?would	 ?be	 ?beneficial	 ?for	 ?conducting	 ?RJ	 ?with	 ?this	 ?population,	 ?since	 ?it	 ?would	 ?presumably	 ?increase	 ?levels	 ?of	 ?comfort,	 ?and	 ?consequently	 ?prevent	 ?the	 ?overstatement	 ?of	 ?risk.	 ?	 ?Similarly	 ?Max	 ?emphasized	 ?the	 ?importance	 ?of	 ?RJ	 ?practitioners	 ?having	 ?an	 ??appropriate	 ?level	 ?of	 ?awareness?,	 ?since	 ?his	 ?own	 ?experience	 ?opened	 ?his	 ?eyes	 ?and	 ?humanized	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?in	 ?a	 ?way	 ?that	 ?would	 ?not	 ?have	 ?happened	 ?otherwise.	 ?	 ?He	 ?argued	 ?that	 ?if	 ?practitioners	 ?were	 ?to	 ?become	 ?more	 ?experienced	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?health,	 ?it	 ?would	 ?initiate	 ?greater	 ?access	 ?to	 ?RJ	 ?for	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness.	 ?	 ?He	 ?referred	 ?to	 ?the	 ?stigma	 ?that	 ?exists	 ?amongst	 ?practitioners	 ?as	 ?the	 ??spider	 ?syndrome?,	 ?explaining:	 ??We?re	 ?scared	 ?of	 ?spiders	 ?because	 ?we	 ?don?t	 ?know	 ?enough	 ?about	 ?them.	 ?	 ?We?re	 ?scared	 ?of	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?because	 ?we	 ?don?t	 ?know	 ?enough	 ?about	 ?it?.	 ?	 ?He	 ?consequently	 ?argued	 ?that	 ?if	 ?one	 ?enhances	 ?one?s	 ?understanding	 ?and	 ?knowledge,	 ?one	 ?decreases	 ?one?s	 ?fear	 ?and	 ?consequently	 ?enhances	 ?the	 ?use	 ?of	 ?RJ	 ?with	 ?this	 ?population.	 ?RJ	 ?as	 ?a	 ?stigma-?reducing	 ?tool.	 ?	 ?Another	 ?major	 ?premise	 ?that	 ?came	 ?out	 ?these	 ?interviews	 ?was	 ?the	 ?idea	 ?that	 ?the	 ?RJ	 ?process	 ?itself	 ?can	 ?be	 ?used	 ?as	 ?a	 ?stigma-??reducing	 ?tool.	 ?	 ?It	 ?can	 ?initiate	 ?conversation	 ?about	 ?mental	 ?illness,	 ?and	 ?promote	 ?opportunity	 ?for	 ?all	 ?persons	 ?involved	 ?in	 ?the	 ?RJ	 ?process	 ?to	 ?learn	 ?about	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?from	 ?the	 ?service	 ?user	 ?who	 ?is	 ?experiencing	 ?it.	 ?	 ? About	 ?this	 ?topic,	 ?John	 ?said:	 ??RJ	 ?is	 ?the	 ?exposure?.	 ?	 ?He	 ?was	 ?speaking	 ?broadly,	 ?explaining	 ?that	 ?RJ	 ?provides	 ?an	 ?opportunity	 ?for	 ?offenders	 ?to	 ?meet	 ?victims,	 ?and	 ?vice	 ?versa.	 ?	 ?In	 ?	 ? 63	 ?his	 ?experience,	 ?such	 ?meetings	 ?often	 ?generate	 ?shifts	 ?in	 ?ways	 ?of	 ?thinking,	 ?and	 ?increase	 ?levels	 ?of	 ?understanding	 ?for	 ?the	 ?parties	 ?involved.	 ?	 ?Although	 ?John	 ?made	 ?it	 ?clear	 ?that	 ?accountability	 ?and	 ?forgiveness	 ?were	 ?not	 ?a	 ?requirement	 ?of	 ?any	 ?RJ	 ?process	 ?that	 ?he	 ?had	 ?worked	 ?on,	 ?he	 ?wanted	 ?to	 ?emphasize	 ?the	 ?power	 ?that	 ?such	 ?meetings	 ?can	 ?have	 ?for	 ?producing	 ?a	 ?deeper	 ?consideration	 ?of	 ?people?s	 ?emotions,	 ?behaviours	 ?and	 ?perspectives.	 ?	 ?As	 ?a	 ?result,	 ?he	 ?agreed	 ?that	 ?it	 ?could	 ?be	 ?a	 ?powerful	 ?combatant	 ?of	 ?stigma	 ?against	 ?mental	 ?illness.	 ?	 ?	 ?John	 ?also	 ?explained	 ?that	 ?RJ	 ?conferences	 ?involving	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?create	 ?a	 ?platform	 ?for	 ?service	 ?users	 ?who	 ?have	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?to	 ?educate	 ?others	 ?about	 ?their	 ?condition,	 ?in	 ?a	 ?safe	 ?and	 ?non-??judgmental	 ?environment.	 ?	 ?At	 ?the	 ?same	 ?time,	 ?it	 ?gives	 ?an	 ?opportunity	 ?for	 ?the	 ?service	 ?users	 ?who	 ?do	 ?not	 ?have	 ?a	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?to	 ?ask	 ?questions	 ?and	 ?learn	 ?about	 ?mental	 ?illness,	 ?and	 ?perhaps	 ?leave	 ?the	 ?conference	 ?with	 ?less	 ?stigmatizing	 ?thoughts.	 ?	 ?He	 ?gives	 ?the	 ?following	 ?examples	 ?to	 ?support	 ?his	 ?point:	 ??If	 ?the	 ?victim	 ?was	 ?to	 ?hear	 ?from	 ?a	 ?second	 ?hand	 ?source	 ?that	 ?the	 ?offender	 ?had	 ?schizophrenia,	 ?they	 ?would	 ?be	 ?very	 ?likely	 ?to	 ?have	 ?a	 ?very	 ?negative	 ?idea	 ?of	 ?what	 ?that	 ?is,	 ?probably	 ?lump	 ?this	 ?offender	 ?in	 ?with	 ?all	 ?the	 ?other	 ?bad	 ?news	 ?stories	 ?about	 ?schizophrenics?.and	 ?be	 ?really	 ?frightened?.whereas	 ?I	 ?think	 ?that?when	 ?they	 ?meet?the	 ?victim	 ?finds	 ?out,	 ?in	 ?many	 ?cases,	 ?quite	 ?a	 ?lot	 ?of	 ?technical	 ?information	 ?about	 ?what	 ?it	 ?means?.	 ?	 ?He	 ?then	 ?admitted	 ?that	 ?he	 ?personally	 ?learned	 ?more	 ?about	 ?what	 ?it	 ?is	 ?like	 ?to	 ?live	 ?with	 ?schizophrenia	 ?from	 ?conferences	 ?such	 ?as	 ?these	 ?than	 ?he	 ?could	 ?have	 ?from	 ?any	 ?other	 ?source,	 ?and	 ?that	 ?the	 ?service	 ?users	 ?likely	 ?did	 ?too.	 ?	 ?Additionally,	 ?John	 ?explained	 ?that	 ?he	 ?is	 ?an	 ?advocate	 ?for	 ?face-??to-??face	 ?RJ,	 ?instead	 ?of	 ?RJ	 ?conducted	 ?via	 ?letter	 ?correspondence.	 ?	 ?He	 ?argued	 ?that	 ?the	 ?latter	 ?is	 ?generally	 ?much	 ?less	 ?impactful.	 ?	 ?Personal	 ?contact	 ?therefore,	 ?appears	 ?vital.	 ?	 ? 64	 ?Max	 ?supported	 ?this	 ?view,	 ?stating	 ?that	 ?RJ	 ?processes	 ?could	 ?fight	 ?stigma,	 ?because	 ?they	 ?could	 ?provide	 ?an	 ?opportunity	 ?for	 ?learning	 ?and	 ?increasing	 ?understanding.	 ?	 ?He	 ?said:	 ??In	 ?general,	 ?I	 ?personally	 ?believe	 ?that	 ?most	 ?people	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?problems	 ?or	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?just	 ?want	 ?to	 ?be	 ?treated	 ?normally	 ?and	 ?shown	 ?a	 ?bit	 ?of	 ?understanding?.	 ?	 ?RJ,	 ?he	 ?argued,	 ?is	 ?a	 ?good	 ?conduit	 ?for	 ?such	 ?opportunities	 ?and	 ?conversations.	 ?	 ?However,	 ?despite	 ?his	 ?enthusiasm,	 ?Max	 ?also	 ?stressed	 ?that	 ?RJ	 ?does	 ?not	 ?have	 ?the	 ?power	 ?to	 ?reduce	 ?stigma	 ?on	 ?a	 ?large	 ?scale,	 ?since	 ?RJ	 ?conferences	 ?and	 ?mediations	 ?are	 ?private	 ?affairs.	 ?	 ?He	 ?then	 ?jokingly	 ?added	 ?that	 ?the	 ?only	 ?way	 ?to	 ?augment	 ?this	 ?would	 ?be	 ?to	 ?video	 ?a	 ?successful	 ?RJ	 ?conference	 ?with	 ?a	 ?person	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness,	 ?and	 ?play	 ?it	 ?on	 ?primetime	 ?television.	 ?	 ?	 ?RJ	 ?and	 ?the	 ?normalization	 ?of	 ?mental	 ?illness.	 ?	 ?Another	 ?theme	 ?that	 ?emerged	 ?from	 ?the	 ?interviews	 ?was	 ?one	 ?of	 ?RJ	 ?being	 ?a	 ?tool	 ?for	 ?the	 ?normalization	 ?of	 ?mental	 ?illness.	 ?	 ?Related	 ?to	 ?combating	 ?stigma,	 ?normalization	 ?of	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?issues	 ?is	 ?the	 ?process	 ?by	 ?which	 ?the	 ?line	 ?between	 ??us?	 ?and	 ??other?	 ?becomes	 ?diminished,	 ?and	 ?there	 ?is	 ?recognition	 ?that	 ?all	 ?people	 ?can	 ?develop	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?issues.	 ?	 ?Consequently,	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?ought	 ?not	 ?to	 ?be	 ?ostracized.	 ?	 ?Participants	 ?alluded	 ?to	 ?such	 ?a	 ?phenomenon	 ?by	 ?making	 ?comments	 ?about	 ?the	 ?high	 ?prevalence	 ?of	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?issues,	 ?and	 ?drawing	 ?attention	 ?to	 ?the	 ?observation	 ?that	 ?even	 ?one	 ?single	 ?event,	 ?such	 ?as	 ?a	 ?crime,	 ?could	 ?alter	 ?a	 ?person?s	 ?psychological	 ?state.	 ?	 ?More	 ?specifically,	 ?participants	 ?spoke	 ?of	 ?high	 ?rates	 ?of	 ?symptoms	 ?of	 ?post-??traumatic	 ?stress	 ?disorder	 ?that	 ?they	 ?have	 ?observed	 ?in	 ?victims	 ?of	 ?crime.	 ?	 ?Max	 ?explained:	 ??Well	 ?mental	 ?health,	 ?correct	 ?me	 ?if	 ?I?m	 ?wrong,	 ?but	 ?if	 ?something	 ?happens	 ?to	 ?you,	 ?it	 ?can	 ?alter?you	 ?know	 ?I	 ?can	 ?walk	 ?out	 ?this	 ?door	 ?and	 ?a	 ?big	 ?monster	 ?can	 ?go	 ??BAAA!?,	 ?and	 ?I	 ?may	 ?never	 ?walk	 ?out	 ?that	 ?door	 ?ever	 ?again.?	 ?	 ?He	 ?then	 ?explained	 ?that	 ?he	 ?has	 ?observed	 ?such	 ?fears	 ?and	 ?phobias	 ?diminish	 ?following	 ?RJ	 ?processes.	 ?	 ? 65	 ?Susan	 ?also	 ?spoke	 ?of	 ?the	 ?benefits	 ?that	 ?RJ	 ?appeared	 ?to	 ?have	 ?for	 ?individuals	 ?suffering	 ?from	 ?symptoms	 ?of	 ?PTSD.	 ?	 ?	 ?Additionally,	 ?she	 ?explained:	 ??It	 ?varies	 ?a	 ?great	 ?deal	 ?what	 ?counts	 ?as	 ?a	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?problem?,	 ?saying	 ?that	 ?a	 ?few	 ?people	 ?she	 ?has	 ?worked	 ?with	 ?had	 ?a	 ?diagnosed	 ?serious	 ?and	 ?persistent	 ?mental	 ?illness,	 ?although	 ?their	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?was	 ?unnoticeable.	 ?	 ?These	 ?individuals	 ?had	 ?to	 ?specifically	 ?disclose	 ?that	 ?they	 ?had	 ?a	 ?mental	 ?illness,	 ?because	 ?their	 ?behaviours	 ?would	 ?not	 ?dictate	 ?that	 ?there	 ?was	 ?anything	 ?different	 ?about	 ?them.	 ?	 ?They	 ?were	 ?quite	 ?possibly	 ?stable	 ?and	 ?in	 ?recovery.	 ?	 ?On	 ?the	 ?other	 ?hand	 ?Susan	 ?also	 ?spoke	 ?of	 ?an	 ?individual	 ?she	 ?worked	 ?with	 ?who	 ?asked	 ?strange	 ?questions	 ?and	 ?displayed	 ?trouble	 ?communicating.	 ?	 ?In	 ?this	 ?case,	 ?Susan	 ?said	 ?that	 ?the	 ?symptoms	 ?of	 ?the	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?were	 ?much	 ?more	 ?obvious	 ?and	 ?pervasive.	 ?	 ?Her	 ?argument	 ?was	 ?that	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?is	 ?highly	 ?variable,	 ?and	 ?what	 ?counts	 ?as	 ?a	 ??mentally	 ?ill?	 ?individual	 ?is	 ?rarely	 ?black	 ?and	 ?white,	 ?since	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?serious	 ?and	 ?persistent	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?can	 ?behave	 ?in	 ?ways	 ?that	 ?seem	 ?entirely	 ?within	 ?the	 ?range	 ?of	 ?what	 ?would	 ?be	 ?considered	 ?normal.	 ?John	 ?spoke	 ?of	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?as	 ?a	 ?continuum.	 ?	 ?He	 ?explained	 ?that	 ?most	 ?individuals	 ?likely	 ?sit	 ?somewhere	 ?along	 ?a	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?continuum,	 ?and	 ?that	 ?the	 ?defining	 ?factor	 ?of	 ?what	 ?should	 ?be	 ?considered	 ?a	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?is	 ?very	 ?vague.	 ?	 ?He	 ?defended	 ?this	 ?claim	 ?by	 ?arguing	 ?that	 ?most	 ?people?s	 ?behaviours	 ?fluctuate	 ?throughout	 ?their	 ?lives,	 ?explaining	 ?further	 ?that	 ?the	 ?singling	 ?out	 ?of	 ?persons	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ??assumes	 ?that	 ?a	 ?lot	 ?of	 ?mental	 ?disorders	 ?are	 ?switches.?	 ?	 ?He	 ?believes	 ?that	 ?there	 ?exists	 ?an	 ?assumption	 ?that	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ??	 ??are	 ?either	 ?mentally	 ?ill	 ?or	 ?they	 ?are	 ?not.	 ?	 ?They	 ?either	 ?have	 ?schizophrenia	 ?or	 ?they	 ?have	 ?not.	 ?	 ?They	 ?are	 ?depressed	 ?or	 ?they	 ?are	 ?not.	 ?	 ?And	 ?it?s	 ?not	 ?like	 ?that.?	 ?	 ?In	 ?addition,	 ?John	 ?also	 ?spoke	 ?of	 ?the	 ?benefits	 ?that	 ?RJ	 ?brings	 ?to	 ?individuals	 ?who	 ?have	 ?a	 ?diagnosed	 ?mental	 ?illness,	 ?in	 ?encouraging	 ?them	 ?to	 ?accept	 ?their	 ?condition	 ?without	 ?shame.	 ?	 ?He	 ?explained	 ?that	 ?often	 ?service	 ?	 ? 66	 ?users	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?are	 ?able	 ?to	 ?use	 ?the	 ?RJ	 ?process	 ?to	 ?explain	 ?their	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?to	 ?another	 ?person,	 ?and	 ?in	 ?so	 ?doing,	 ?discuss	 ?their	 ?symptoms	 ?in	 ?a	 ?safe	 ?environment	 ?where	 ?they	 ?are	 ?not	 ?judged.	 ?	 ?According	 ?to	 ?John,	 ?this	 ?bears	 ?fruitful	 ?outcomes	 ?for	 ?service	 ?users	 ?who	 ?have	 ?a	 ?mental	 ?illness,	 ?because	 ?they	 ?are	 ?given	 ?opportunity	 ?to	 ?explain	 ?that	 ?they	 ?are	 ?the	 ?same	 ?as	 ?anyone	 ?else,	 ?except	 ?they	 ?live	 ?with	 ?symptoms	 ?x,	 ?y	 ?or	 ?z.	 ?	 ?John	 ?also	 ?explained	 ?that	 ?conversations	 ?such	 ?as	 ?these	 ?go	 ?a	 ?long	 ?way	 ?toward	 ?generating	 ?empathy	 ?for	 ?the	 ?person	 ?with	 ?the	 ?mental	 ?illness,	 ?and	 ?can	 ?occasionally	 ?produce	 ?outcome	 ?agreements	 ?that	 ?are	 ?conducive	 ?to	 ?recovery.	 ?	 ?For	 ?example,	 ?he	 ?explained	 ?that	 ?it	 ?is	 ?common	 ?for	 ?RJ	 ?outcome	 ?agreements	 ?to	 ?include	 ?medication	 ?management	 ?and	 ?connection	 ?with	 ?a	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?worker,	 ?as	 ?means	 ?of	 ?preventing	 ?a	 ?recurrence	 ?of	 ?the	 ?crime.	 ?	 ?	 ?As	 ?mentioned	 ?previously,	 ?John	 ?also	 ?said	 ?that	 ?the	 ?behaviours	 ?of	 ?many	 ?victims	 ?might	 ?be	 ?considered	 ?unusual	 ?and	 ?exaggerated.	 ?	 ?He	 ?said	 ?that	 ?he	 ?has	 ?witnessed	 ?victims	 ?cry	 ?and	 ?scream	 ?erratically	 ?during	 ?RJ	 ?conferences,	 ?behaving	 ?in	 ?ways	 ?that	 ?may	 ?seem	 ?embellished	 ?and	 ?bizarre.	 ?	 ?He	 ?regularly	 ?wonders	 ?if	 ?such	 ?behaviours	 ?are	 ?an	 ?appropriate	 ?emotional	 ?response	 ?to	 ?the	 ?event,	 ?or	 ?concrete	 ?signs	 ?of	 ?mental	 ?illness.	 ?He	 ?eventually	 ?shared	 ?that	 ?his	 ?experiences	 ?have	 ?led	 ?him	 ?to	 ?believe	 ?that	 ?the	 ?line	 ?between	 ?these	 ?two	 ?categories	 ?is	 ?very	 ?fine,	 ?and	 ?that	 ?any	 ?emotional	 ?response,	 ?even	 ?if	 ?outside	 ?the	 ?range	 ?of	 ?what	 ?would	 ?be	 ?considered	 ?normal,	 ?is	 ?not	 ?necessarily	 ?indicative	 ?of	 ?mental	 ?illness.	 ?	 ?The	 ?individual	 ?may	 ?simply	 ?be	 ?expressing	 ?his	 ?or	 ?her	 ?emotions	 ?in	 ?an	 ?expected	 ?and	 ?reasonable	 ?fashion.	 ?	 ?This	 ?is	 ?their	 ?right.	 ?	 ?Consequently,	 ?John	 ?said	 ?that	 ?the	 ?boundaries	 ?of	 ?what	 ?constitutes	 ?a	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?have	 ?become	 ?less	 ?important	 ?to	 ?him,	 ?and	 ?he	 ?has	 ?learned	 ?to	 ?simply	 ?focus	 ?on	 ?ensuring	 ?safety	 ?and	 ?managing	 ?behaviours,	 ?whatever	 ?they	 ?might	 ?be,	 ?without	 ?searching	 ?for	 ?existing	 ?diagnoses.	 ?	 ? 67	 ?To	 ?specialize,	 ?or	 ?not	 ?to	 ?specialize.	 ?	 ?Lastly,	 ?all	 ?three	 ?participants	 ?argued	 ?that	 ?it	 ?is	 ?favourable	 ?that	 ?all	 ?RJ	 ?practitioners	 ?become	 ?more	 ?skilled	 ?in	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?than	 ?to	 ?have	 ?selective	 ?practitioners	 ?who	 ?specialize	 ?in	 ?it.	 ?	 ?Their	 ?argument	 ?stemmed	 ?from	 ?the	 ?fact	 ?that	 ?all	 ?three	 ?strongly	 ?believed	 ?in	 ?a	 ?high	 ?prevalence	 ?of	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?amongst	 ?service	 ?users.	 ?	 ?Additionally,	 ?participants	 ?emphasized	 ?that	 ?most	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?is	 ?likely	 ?undiagnosed	 ?and	 ?that	 ?the	 ?definition	 ?of	 ?what	 ?constitutes	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?remains	 ?very	 ?vague.	 ?	 ?Consequently,	 ?participants	 ?stood	 ?behind	 ?the	 ?claim	 ?that	 ?all	 ?RJ	 ?practitioners	 ?ought	 ?to	 ?become	 ?competent	 ?and	 ?comfortable	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?and	 ?symptoms	 ?of	 ?mental	 ?illness.	 ?	 ?That	 ?is	 ?not	 ?to	 ?say	 ?that	 ?RJ	 ?practitioners	 ?ought	 ?to	 ?become	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?professionals.	 ?	 ?Rather,	 ?they	 ?ought	 ?to	 ?increase	 ?their	 ?skills	 ?to	 ?a	 ?point	 ?where	 ?their	 ?levels	 ?of	 ?comfort	 ?become	 ?enhanced,	 ?and	 ?thoughts	 ?of	 ?stigma	 ?and	 ?stereotype	 ?decreased.	 ?	 ?Specific	 ?skills	 ?and	 ?knowledge	 ?that	 ?are	 ?lacking	 ?can	 ?become	 ?enhanced	 ?through	 ?collaboration	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?professionals,	 ?and	 ?an	 ?overall	 ?increase	 ?in	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?literacy.	 ?	 ?All	 ?three	 ?participants	 ?strongly	 ?believed	 ?that	 ?work	 ?with	 ?service	 ?users	 ?who	 ?have	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?should	 ?be	 ?universal	 ?amongst	 ?RJ	 ?practitioners,	 ?rather	 ?than	 ?specialized.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? 68	 ?Conclusion	 ?Personal	 ?Contact	 ?and	 ?Mental	 ?Health	 ?Education	 ?	 ? The	 ?findings	 ?in	 ?this	 ?study	 ?provide	 ?important	 ?insights	 ?into	 ?restorative	 ?justice	 ?practitioner	 ?development,	 ?and	 ?support	 ?the	 ?conclusions	 ?of	 ?previous	 ?research	 ?that	 ?exists	 ?in	 ?the	 ?literature	 ?(Brown	 ?et	 ?al.,	 ?2010;	 ?Eisenberg	 ?et	 ?al.,	 ?2012;	 ?Gould	 ?et	 ?al.,	 ?2007;	 ?Normal	 ?et	 ?al.,	 ?2008;	 ?Reavley	 ?&	 ?Jorm,	 ?2011;	 ?Sadler	 ?et	 ?al.,	 ?2012;	 ?Scheyett,	 ?2005).	 ?	 ?Most	 ?notable	 ?is	 ?the	 ?observation	 ?that	 ?all	 ?study	 ?participants	 ?experienced	 ?personal	 ?contact	 ?with	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness,	 ?which	 ?likely	 ?contributed	 ?to	 ?their	 ?enhanced	 ?comfort	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?and	 ?decrease	 ?in	 ?stigmatizing	 ?thoughts	 ?and	 ?behaviours.	 ?	 ?Furthermore,	 ?all	 ?participants	 ?had	 ?either	 ?initiated	 ?personal	 ?education	 ?about	 ?mental	 ?illness,	 ?such	 ?as	 ?through	 ?conversations	 ?with	 ?psychiatrists	 ?or	 ?service	 ?users,	 ?or	 ?requested	 ?more	 ?training	 ?opportunities	 ?from	 ?their	 ?RJ	 ?program	 ?coordinators	 ?and	 ?trainers.	 ?	 ?Consequently,	 ?personal	 ?contact	 ?and	 ?education	 ?may	 ?have	 ?instigated	 ?willingness	 ?to	 ?practice	 ?RJ	 ?with	 ?service	 ?users	 ?who	 ?have	 ?mental	 ?illness.	 ?	 ?This	 ?supports	 ?previous	 ?research	 ?by	 ?Brown	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?(2010),	 ?Eisenberg	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?(2012),	 ?Gould	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?(2007),	 ?Norman	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?(2008)	 ?and	 ?Scheyett	 ?(2005)	 ?which	 ?suggests	 ?that	 ?personal	 ?contact	 ?combined	 ?with	 ?education	 ?are	 ?most	 ?effective	 ?in	 ?reducing	 ?stigma.	 ?Changing	 ?Attitudes	 ?	 ? Findings	 ?also	 ?support	 ?the	 ?notion	 ?that	 ?attitudes	 ?about	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?are	 ?changing.	 ?	 ?First,	 ?it	 ?is	 ?interesting	 ?to	 ?note	 ?that	 ?participants	 ?largely	 ?accepted	 ?and	 ?normalized	 ?symptoms	 ?related	 ?to	 ?PTSD,	 ?especially	 ?when	 ?discussing	 ?victims	 ?of	 ?crime.	 ?	 ?Participants	 ?widely	 ?accepted	 ?that	 ?victims	 ?of	 ?crime	 ?are	 ?likely	 ?to	 ?be	 ?emotionally	 ?impacted,	 ?and	 ?consequently	 ?likely	 ?to	 ?experience	 ?increased	 ?stress,	 ?anxiety	 ?and	 ?emotional	 ?distress.	 ?	 ?This	 ?supports	 ?findings	 ?from	 ?Project	 ?Liberty,	 ?the	 ?TRiM	 ?Program	 ?and	 ?the	 ?study	 ?by	 ?Reavley	 ?and	 ?Jorm	 ?(2011),	 ?which	 ?	 ? 69	 ?suggest	 ?an	 ?increased	 ?acceptance	 ?of	 ?symptoms	 ?of	 ?PTSD	 ?in	 ?the	 ?general	 ?public,	 ?and	 ?a	 ?growing	 ?appreciation	 ?for	 ?the	 ?emotional	 ?impact	 ?of	 ?trauma.	 ?	 ?	 ? 	 ?Second,	 ?findings	 ?also	 ?point	 ?to	 ?the	 ?existence	 ?of	 ?a	 ?hierarchy	 ?of	 ?mental	 ?illnesses,	 ?in	 ?which	 ?certain	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?such	 ?as	 ?PTSD,	 ?depression	 ?or	 ?anxiety	 ?disorders	 ?are	 ?breaking	 ?through	 ?stigma	 ?walls	 ?while	 ?others	 ?such	 ?as	 ?schizophrenia	 ?are	 ?not.	 ?	 ?Although	 ?participants	 ?were	 ?strongly	 ?supportive	 ?of	 ?including	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?in	 ?RJ	 ?conferences,	 ?they	 ?also	 ?articulated	 ?some	 ?concerns	 ?about	 ?working	 ?with	 ?service	 ?users	 ?who	 ?were	 ?under	 ?the	 ?influence	 ?of	 ?drugs	 ?or	 ?living	 ?with	 ?a	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?that	 ?imperiled	 ?their	 ?connection	 ?with	 ?reality.	 ?	 ?This	 ?too	 ?supports	 ?previous	 ?research	 ?by	 ?Norman	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?(2008),	 ?Reavley	 ?and	 ?Jorm	 ?(2011)	 ?and	 ?Sadler	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?(2012),	 ?which	 ?showed	 ?that	 ?attitudes	 ?about	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?differed	 ?depending	 ?on	 ?the	 ?diagnosis.	 ?	 ?However,	 ?it	 ?is	 ?important	 ?to	 ?note	 ?that	 ?participants	 ?articulated	 ?communication	 ?as	 ?a	 ?barrier,	 ?not	 ?stigma,	 ?and	 ?so	 ?it	 ?remains	 ?unclear	 ?whether	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?thought	 ?disorders	 ?are	 ?limited	 ?due	 ?to	 ?stigma	 ?and	 ?stereotype	 ?or	 ?because	 ?there	 ?is	 ?some	 ?legitimate	 ?concern	 ?over	 ?their	 ?ability	 ?to	 ?fully	 ?participate	 ?in	 ?a	 ?RJ	 ?conference.	 ?	 ?	 ?Continuing	 ?Dominance	 ?of	 ?the	 ?Biomedical	 ?Model	 ? 	 ?	 ? Third,	 ?findings	 ?also	 ?demonstrate	 ?the	 ?continuing	 ?dominance	 ?of	 ?the	 ?medical	 ?community	 ?over	 ?matters	 ?of	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?and	 ?mental	 ?illness,	 ?supporting	 ?Fee	 ?	 ?(2000)	 ?and	 ?Estroff	 ?et	 ?al.?s	 ?(1991)	 ?claim.	 ?	 ?This	 ?is	 ?evident	 ?in	 ?the	 ?importance	 ?placed	 ?on	 ?the	 ?opinions	 ?of	 ?psychiatrists	 ?with	 ?regards	 ?to	 ?the	 ?mental	 ?status	 ?of	 ?patients,	 ?and	 ?the	 ?unquestionable	 ?acceptance	 ?of	 ?psychiatrists	 ?as	 ?experts	 ?on	 ?mental	 ?health.	 ?	 ?It	 ?is	 ?also	 ?evident	 ?in	 ?the	 ?language	 ?that	 ?participants	 ?used	 ?during	 ?interviews:	 ?the	 ?instinctive	 ?use	 ?of	 ?diagnostic	 ?labels.	 ?	 ?However,	 ?it	 ?must	 ?be	 ?said	 ?that	 ?despite	 ?this,	 ?participants	 ?also	 ?admitted	 ?that	 ?they	 ?tried	 ?to	 ?empower	 ?service	 ?users	 ?as	 ?much	 ?as	 ?possible,	 ?and	 ?consequently	 ?placed	 ?great	 ?importance	 ?on	 ?the	 ?voices	 ?of	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?	 ? 70	 ?mental	 ?illness,	 ?putting	 ?the	 ?onus	 ?on	 ?psychiatrists	 ?to	 ?prove	 ?that	 ?service	 ?users	 ?were	 ?unsafe	 ?to	 ?take	 ?part	 ?in	 ?RJ.	 ?	 ?This	 ?is	 ?in	 ?line	 ?with	 ?PSR	 ?ideology,	 ?and	 ?perhaps	 ?points	 ?to	 ?an	 ?ideological	 ?similarity	 ?between	 ?these	 ?two	 ?subject	 ?areas.	 ?	 ?Furthermore,	 ?participants	 ?also	 ?said	 ?that	 ?they	 ?placed	 ?greater	 ?importance	 ?on	 ?behaviours	 ?rather	 ?than	 ?on	 ?diagnostic	 ?labels,	 ?since	 ?labels	 ?were	 ?often	 ?unavailable	 ?and	 ?relatively	 ?unimportant	 ?in	 ?an	 ?RJ	 ?conference.	 ?	 ?Participants	 ?were	 ?also	 ?quick	 ?to	 ?emphasize	 ?that	 ?diagnoses	 ?and	 ?definitions	 ?of	 ?abnormal	 ?behaviour	 ?were	 ?rarely	 ?black	 ?and	 ?white,	 ?and	 ?that	 ?consequently,	 ?participants	 ?conceptualized	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?as	 ?continuum	 ?or	 ?spectrum,	 ?embracing	 ?many	 ?shades	 ?of	 ?grey.	 ?	 ?As	 ?a	 ?result,	 ?it	 ?seems	 ?likely	 ?that	 ?the	 ?latest	 ?edition	 ?of	 ?the	 ?DSM	 ?would	 ?substantiate	 ?such	 ?a	 ?worldview,	 ?and	 ?support	 ?participants?	 ?observations.	 ?The	 ?Social	 ?Environment	 ?and	 ?Definitions	 ?of	 ?Normal	 ?and	 ?Abnormal	 ?Behaviour	 ?	 ? This	 ?last	 ?point	 ?raises	 ?an	 ?interesting	 ?discussion	 ?on	 ?the	 ?interplay	 ?between	 ?social	 ?environment	 ?and	 ?definitions	 ?of	 ?what	 ?constitutes	 ?normal	 ?and	 ?abnormal	 ?behaviour,	 ?as	 ?discussed	 ?by	 ?Davison	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?(2004),	 ?Foucault	 ?(1965),	 ?Passer	 ?and	 ?Smith	 ?(2001),	 ?Pescolido	 ?and	 ?Rubin	 ?(2000)	 ?and	 ?Scull	 ?(1977).	 ?Interestingly,	 ?all	 ?three	 ?participants	 ?largely	 ?accepted	 ?a	 ?certain	 ?normalization	 ?of	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?and	 ?spoke	 ?in	 ?depth	 ?about	 ?the	 ?diversity	 ?of	 ?behaviour	 ?that	 ?RJ	 ?conferences	 ?generate.	 ?	 ?More	 ?specifically,	 ?participants,	 ?John	 ?especially,	 ?discussed	 ?the	 ?emotional	 ?rawness	 ?of	 ?RJ	 ?conferences,	 ?and	 ?the	 ?unpredictable	 ?and	 ?highly	 ?emotive	 ?behavioural	 ?outbursts	 ?that	 ?often	 ?emerge	 ?from	 ?service	 ?users.	 ?	 ?This	 ?was	 ?the	 ?main	 ?force	 ?behind	 ?the	 ?recommendation	 ?that	 ?all	 ?RJ	 ?practitioners	 ?be	 ?trained	 ?in	 ?mental	 ?health,	 ?rather	 ?than	 ?have	 ?such	 ?services	 ?specialized.	 ?	 ?The	 ?consensus	 ?was	 ?that	 ?exaggerated,	 ?eccentric	 ?and	 ?perhaps	 ?unusual	 ?behaviour	 ?is	 ?so	 ?prevalent	 ?and	 ?likely	 ?to	 ?occur	 ?in	 ?an	 ?RJ	 ?process	 ?that	 ?all	 ?practitioners	 ?need	 ?to	 ?be	 ?comfortable	 ?working	 ?with	 ?it.	 ?	 ?The	 ?term	 ??abnormal	 ?behaviour?,	 ?it	 ?	 ? 71	 ?would	 ?seem,	 ?has	 ?little	 ?meaning	 ?and	 ?definition,	 ?and	 ?consequently,	 ?such	 ?behaviour	 ?may	 ?in	 ?fact	 ?be	 ?accepted	 ?as	 ?the	 ?norm	 ?within	 ?RJ,	 ?if	 ?not	 ?outside	 ?of	 ?it.	 ?	 ?Connecting	 ?this	 ?with	 ?the	 ?literature,	 ?it	 ?would	 ?seem	 ?that	 ?definitions	 ?of	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?have	 ?become	 ?blurred	 ?because	 ?the	 ?social	 ?environment	 ?is	 ?such	 ?that	 ?behaviours	 ?deemed	 ?abnormal	 ?outside	 ?of	 ?RJ	 ?are	 ?perfectly	 ?normal	 ?within	 ?in.	 ?	 ?Furthermore,	 ?considering	 ?the	 ?observation	 ?that	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?diagnoses	 ?are	 ?seemingly	 ?rare,	 ?these	 ?practitioners	 ?accept	 ?that	 ?a	 ?wide	 ?diversity	 ?of	 ?behaviour	 ?is	 ?in	 ?fact,	 ?the	 ?norm.	 ?	 ?The	 ?only	 ?concern	 ?for	 ?processing	 ?RJ	 ?with	 ?individuals	 ?who	 ?have	 ?serious	 ?and	 ?persistent	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?then	 ?becomes	 ?safety	 ?and	 ?communication,	 ?and	 ?the	 ?only	 ?hindrance,	 ?fear	 ?and	 ?stigma.	 ?Stability	 ?Defined	 ?	 ? The	 ?issue	 ?of	 ?safety	 ?and	 ?communication	 ?appears	 ?to	 ?be	 ?linked	 ?with	 ?the	 ?requirement	 ?that	 ?individuals	 ?who	 ?wish	 ?to	 ?take	 ?part	 ?in	 ?RJ	 ?be	 ?stable.	 ?	 ?One	 ?could	 ?argue	 ?that	 ?despite	 ?wanting	 ?to	 ?have	 ?more	 ?knowledge	 ?about	 ?mental	 ?illness,	 ?practitioners	 ?interviewed	 ?for	 ?this	 ?study	 ?cared	 ?little	 ?for	 ?diagnostic	 ?labels	 ?and	 ?were	 ?more	 ?concerned	 ?with	 ?behaviours.	 ?	 ?However,	 ?it	 ?is	 ?not	 ?surprising	 ?that	 ?they	 ?would	 ?identify	 ?communication	 ?as	 ?a	 ?main	 ?factor	 ?in	 ?determining	 ?stability.	 ?	 ?Since	 ?RJ	 ?conferences	 ?are	 ?generally	 ?about	 ?conversation	 ?and	 ?dialogue,	 ?communication	 ?becomes	 ?a	 ?key	 ?component	 ?to	 ?success.	 ?	 ?Similar	 ?is	 ?the	 ?stance	 ?behind	 ?attachment	 ?to	 ?reality,	 ?and	 ?the	 ?argument	 ?that	 ?RJ	 ?cannot	 ?be	 ?conducted	 ?if	 ?there	 ?is	 ?disagreement	 ?about	 ?the	 ?facts	 ?about	 ?reality.	 ?	 ?Consequently,	 ?findings	 ?suggest	 ?that	 ?communication,	 ?along	 ?with	 ?presence	 ?of	 ?mind,	 ?are	 ?the	 ?key	 ?factors	 ?affiliated	 ?with	 ?stability.	 ?	 ?This	 ?may	 ?be	 ?why	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?thought	 ?disorders,	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?those	 ?under	 ?the	 ?influence	 ?of	 ?drugs,	 ?are	 ?not	 ?seen	 ?fit	 ?to	 ?take	 ?part	 ?in	 ?RJ	 ?until	 ?such	 ?a	 ?time	 ?that	 ?they	 ?are	 ?able	 ?to	 ?communicate	 ?and	 ?be	 ?present.	 ?	 ?	 ? 72	 ?Implications	 ?for	 ?Social	 ?Work,	 ?Mental	 ?Health	 ?and	 ?Restorative	 ?Justice	 ?Practice	 ?	 ? The	 ?implications	 ?of	 ?these	 ?findings	 ?for	 ?restorative	 ?justice	 ?practice	 ?may	 ?be	 ?significant.	 ?	 ?Findings	 ?may	 ?demonstrate	 ?a	 ?need	 ?for	 ?increased	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?training,	 ?and	 ?point	 ?to	 ?a	 ?recommendation	 ?for	 ?promoting	 ?personal	 ?contact	 ?with	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?amongst	 ?restorative	 ?justice	 ?practitioners.	 ?	 ?All	 ?participants	 ?spoke	 ?of	 ?a	 ?major	 ?shortage	 ?of	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?training,	 ?and	 ?the	 ?subsequent	 ?omission	 ?of	 ?preparation	 ?for	 ?working	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?issues.	 ?	 ?Since	 ?participants	 ?articulated	 ?a	 ?high	 ?prevalence	 ?of	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?issues	 ?in	 ?RJ	 ?proceedings,	 ?this	 ?finding	 ?is	 ?significant	 ?and	 ?points	 ?to	 ?a	 ?gap	 ?in	 ?training.	 ?	 ?Noteworthy	 ?is	 ?the	 ?discussion	 ?brought	 ?forth	 ?by	 ?John,	 ?who	 ?spoke	 ?of	 ?incorporating	 ?personal	 ?contact	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?into	 ?RJ	 ?training	 ?programs.	 ?	 ?He	 ?specifically	 ?emphasized	 ?the	 ?transformative	 ?power	 ?that	 ?such	 ?exposure	 ?might	 ?bring	 ?to	 ?RJ,	 ?and	 ?supported	 ?Susan?s	 ?stance	 ?that	 ?consciousness	 ?raising	 ?and	 ?basic	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?training	 ?are	 ?not	 ?enough.	 ?	 ?Perhaps	 ?RJ	 ?programs	 ?should	 ?consider	 ?asking	 ?trainees	 ?to	 ?volunteer	 ?at	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?centers	 ?or	 ?clubhouses	 ?in	 ?order	 ?to	 ?become	 ?more	 ?comfortable	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness.	 ?	 ?Combined	 ?with	 ?basic	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?education	 ?and	 ?skill	 ?enhancement,	 ?this	 ?could	 ?be	 ?a	 ?recipe	 ?for	 ?increasingly	 ?RJ	 ?work	 ?with	 ?this	 ?population.	 ?	 ?Lastly,	 ?findings	 ?may	 ?also	 ?demonstrate	 ?a	 ?certain	 ?level	 ?of	 ?incompetence	 ?for	 ?working	 ?with	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?issues	 ?amongst	 ?newly	 ?trained	 ?RJ	 ?practitioners,	 ?stemming	 ?from	 ?a	 ?tendency	 ?for	 ?inadequately	 ?short	 ?training	 ?programs.	 ?	 ?	 ? The	 ?discourse	 ?on	 ?training	 ?is	 ?associated	 ?with	 ?the	 ?normalization	 ?of	 ?mental	 ?illness.	 ?	 ?If	 ?we	 ?take	 ?the	 ?stance	 ?that	 ?behaviours	 ?teetering	 ?on	 ?abnormal	 ?outside	 ?of	 ?RJ	 ?are	 ?in	 ?fact	 ?normal	 ?within	 ?it,	 ?then	 ?increasing	 ?comfort	 ?with	 ?working	 ?with	 ?such	 ?behaviours	 ?is	 ?a	 ?necessary	 ?step	 ?toward	 ?improving	 ?practitioner	 ?competence.	 ?	 ?Furthermore,	 ?the	 ?argument	 ?can	 ?be	 ?made	 ?that	 ?	 ? 73	 ?such	 ?an	 ?initiative	 ?could	 ?generate	 ?major	 ?opportunity	 ?for	 ?including	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?serious	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?in	 ?RJ	 ?processes,	 ?and	 ?in-??so-??doing,	 ?be	 ?imperative	 ?to	 ?promoting	 ?social	 ?justice	 ?and	 ?inclusionary	 ?citizenship.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? One	 ?of	 ?the	 ?other	 ?major	 ?implications	 ?of	 ?this	 ?research	 ?is	 ?the	 ?notion	 ?that	 ?RJ	 ?can	 ?be	 ?used	 ?as	 ?a	 ?stigma-??fighting	 ?tool.	 ?	 ?If	 ?personal	 ?contact	 ?and	 ?education	 ?are	 ?central	 ?components	 ?for	 ?stigma	 ?reduction,	 ?then	 ?again,	 ?RJ	 ?presents	 ?a	 ?great	 ?opportunity.	 ?Through	 ?RJ,	 ?discourse	 ?about	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?is	 ?likely	 ?to	 ?develop,	 ?generating	 ?occasion	 ?for	 ?the	 ?behaviours	 ?to	 ?be	 ?understood	 ?and	 ?the	 ?individuals	 ?humanized.	 ?	 ?In	 ?other	 ?words,	 ?the	 ?boundaries	 ?between	 ??us?	 ?and	 ??other?	 ?can	 ?be	 ?pushed	 ?through	 ?RJ,	 ?and	 ?consequently,	 ?promote	 ?the	 ?inclusion	 ?and	 ?normalization	 ?of	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?within	 ?our	 ?society.	 ?	 ?Since	 ?it	 ?has	 ?been	 ?established	 ?that	 ?in	 ?order	 ?to	 ?participate	 ?in	 ?RJ	 ?service	 ?users	 ?must	 ?be	 ?stable,	 ?which	 ?is	 ?defined	 ?as	 ?being	 ?able	 ?to	 ?communicate	 ?and	 ?be	 ?mentally	 ?present	 ?throughout	 ?the	 ?process,	 ?safety	 ?can	 ?be	 ?ensured,	 ?and	 ?meaningful	 ?dialogue	 ?about	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?can	 ?ensue.	 ?	 ?The	 ?only	 ?necessity	 ?for	 ?this	 ?is	 ?that	 ?the	 ?practitioner	 ?feels	 ?confident,	 ?competent	 ?and	 ?comfortable	 ?working	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?issues,	 ?and	 ?consequently	 ?be	 ?able	 ?to	 ?maintain	 ?safety.	 ?	 ?	 ? There	 ?are	 ?also	 ?major	 ?implications	 ?for	 ?social	 ?work,	 ?and	 ?for	 ?the	 ?promotion	 ?of	 ?increased	 ?involvement	 ?in	 ?RJ.	 ?	 ?Social	 ?work	 ?defines	 ?itself	 ?through	 ?social	 ?justice.	 ?	 ?It	 ?is	 ?a	 ?profession	 ?grounded	 ?on	 ?the	 ?pursuit	 ?of	 ?social	 ?justice,	 ?founded	 ?on	 ?advocacy	 ?and	 ?a	 ?belief	 ?in	 ?client	 ?self-??determination	 ?and	 ?autonomy.	 ?	 ?RJ	 ?therefore,	 ?is	 ?a	 ?paradigm	 ?that	 ?intertwines	 ?social	 ?work	 ?ideology,	 ?and	 ?shares	 ?values	 ?such	 ?as	 ?promotion	 ?of	 ?service	 ?user	 ?autonomy,	 ?self-??determination,	 ?empowerment	 ?and	 ?shifts	 ?in	 ?power.	 ?	 ?It	 ?also	 ?inspires	 ?hope	 ?and	 ?healing.	 ?	 ?As	 ?a	 ?result,	 ?the	 ?argument	 ?can	 ?be	 ?made	 ?that	 ?social	 ?work,	 ?as	 ?a	 ?profession,	 ?has	 ?an	 ?obligation	 ?to	 ?become	 ?more	 ?involved	 ?in	 ?RJ	 ?practice	 ?if	 ?it	 ?wants	 ?to	 ?uphold	 ?its	 ?values	 ?and	 ?participate	 ?in	 ?	 ? 74	 ?social	 ?action.	 ?	 ?Contributing	 ?to	 ?this	 ?stance	 ?is	 ?the	 ?proposition	 ?that	 ?RJ	 ?can	 ?be	 ?used	 ?as	 ?a	 ?stigma-??fighting	 ?tool.	 ?	 ?Not	 ?only	 ?does	 ?RJ	 ?have	 ?the	 ?power	 ?to	 ?diminish	 ?stigma	 ?in	 ?practitioners,	 ?and	 ?in	 ?so	 ?doing	 ?promote	 ?greater	 ?inclusion,	 ?but	 ?it	 ?may	 ?also	 ?have	 ?the	 ?power	 ?the	 ?combat	 ?stigma	 ?through	 ?the	 ?processes	 ?and	 ?conferences	 ?themselves.	 ?	 ?If	 ?we	 ?consider	 ?that	 ?restorative	 ?justice	 ?itself	 ?can	 ?be	 ?a	 ?tool	 ?for	 ?decreasing	 ?stigma,	 ?then	 ?we	 ?can	 ?argue	 ?that	 ?restorative	 ?justice	 ?can	 ?become	 ?part	 ?of	 ?a	 ?social	 ?justice	 ?movement.	 ?	 ?With	 ?its	 ?professional	 ?emphasis	 ?on	 ?pursuing	 ?social	 ?justice,	 ?it	 ?would	 ?seem	 ?that	 ?social	 ?work	 ?ought	 ?to	 ?secure	 ?a	 ?place	 ?in	 ?such	 ?an	 ?initiative	 ?and	 ?perhaps	 ?become	 ?more	 ?involved	 ?than	 ?it	 ?has	 ?been	 ?thus	 ?far.	 ?	 ?Facilitating	 ?RJ	 ?processes	 ?with	 ?individuals	 ?who	 ?have	 ?serious	 ?and	 ?persistent	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?could	 ?decrease	 ?stigma,	 ?and	 ?more	 ?importantly,	 ?contribute	 ?to	 ?the	 ?elimination	 ?of	 ?traditional	 ?stereotypes.	 ?	 ?Discourse	 ?about	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?could	 ?provide	 ?learning	 ?and	 ?education	 ?for	 ?those	 ?who	 ?do	 ?not	 ?have	 ?a	 ?current	 ?mental	 ?illness,	 ?and	 ?perhaps	 ?if	 ?not	 ?normalize	 ?mental	 ?illness,	 ?enhance	 ?opportunities	 ?for	 ?social	 ?inclusion	 ?through	 ?compassion	 ?and	 ?dialogue.	 ?	 ?Like	 ?the	 ?participant	 ?Max	 ?said,	 ?RJ	 ?conferences	 ?are	 ?private	 ?affairs	 ?and	 ?as	 ?such	 ?may	 ?limit	 ?the	 ?opportunities	 ?for	 ?wide	 ?scale	 ?stigma	 ?reduction.	 ?Nonetheless	 ?change	 ?at	 ?the	 ?micro-??level	 ?can	 ?be	 ?powerful,	 ?and	 ?perhaps,	 ?produce	 ?a	 ?ripple	 ?effect	 ?that	 ?encompasses	 ?a	 ?wider	 ?range	 ?of	 ?people.	 ?	 ?After	 ?all,	 ?stigma	 ?research	 ?supports	 ?the	 ?notion	 ?that	 ?combating	 ?stigma	 ?is	 ?most	 ?effective	 ?at	 ?the	 ?individual	 ?level,	 ?and	 ?consequently,	 ?is	 ?reliant	 ?on	 ?personal	 ?experience	 ?and	 ?a	 ?micro	 ?journey.	 ?The	 ?study?s	 ?findings	 ?may	 ?also	 ?yield	 ?significant	 ?implications	 ?for	 ?social	 ?work	 ?and	 ?mental	 ?health.	 ?	 ?One	 ?could	 ?suggest	 ?that	 ?social	 ?workers	 ?with	 ?a	 ?background	 ?in	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?would	 ?be	 ?an	 ?especially	 ?qualified	 ?pool	 ?from	 ?which	 ?to	 ?recruit	 ?RJ	 ?practitioners.	 ?	 ?These	 ?professionals	 ?would	 ?likely	 ?have	 ?the	 ?education	 ?and	 ?personal	 ?experience	 ?needed	 ?to	 ?become	 ?	 ? 75	 ?confident	 ?RJ	 ?practitioners,	 ?comfortable	 ?working	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?issues	 ?and	 ?familiar	 ?with	 ?the	 ?concept	 ?of	 ?empowerment.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?The	 ?idea	 ?that	 ?restorative	 ?justice	 ?can	 ?be	 ?a	 ?powerful	 ?tool	 ?for	 ?decreasing	 ?stigma	 ?is	 ?particularly	 ?important	 ?and	 ?has	 ?implications	 ?not	 ?only	 ?for	 ?social	 ?work	 ?and	 ?RJ,	 ?but	 ?also	 ?for	 ?mental	 ?health.	 ?	 ?These	 ?findings	 ?suggest	 ?that	 ?RJ	 ?ideology	 ?is	 ?in	 ?line	 ?with	 ?PSR	 ?ideology,	 ?and	 ?consequently	 ?fits	 ?into	 ?present	 ?best-??practice	 ?techniques	 ?in	 ?mental	 ?health.	 ?	 ?This	 ?suggests	 ?that	 ?there	 ?is	 ?ample	 ?room	 ?for	 ?RJ	 ?to	 ?enter	 ?into	 ?partnership	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?services.	 ?	 ?If	 ?we	 ?consider	 ?what	 ?participants	 ?said	 ?about	 ?inter-??professional	 ?partnerships,	 ?then	 ?it	 ?stands	 ?to	 ?reason	 ?that	 ?a	 ?partnership	 ?between	 ?restorative	 ?justice,	 ?social	 ?work	 ?and	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?services	 ?could	 ?be	 ?optimal	 ?for	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?advocacy.	 ?	 ?It	 ?is,	 ?after	 ?all,	 ?stigma	 ?that	 ?appears	 ?to	 ?be	 ?a	 ?major	 ?factor	 ?in	 ?limiting	 ?access	 ?to	 ?restorative	 ?justice	 ?services	 ?for	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?SPMI.	 ?	 ?It	 ?is	 ?therefore	 ?stigma	 ?that	 ?needs	 ?to	 ?be	 ?eradicated	 ?if	 ?we	 ?want	 ?to	 ?see	 ?an	 ?increase	 ?in	 ?access	 ?to	 ?such	 ?services	 ?for	 ?this	 ?population.	 ?	 ?	 ?The	 ?above	 ?is	 ?especially	 ?significant	 ?if	 ?we	 ?consider	 ?the	 ?prevalence	 ?of	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?in	 ?the	 ?criminal	 ?justice	 ?system,	 ?both	 ?in	 ?the	 ?UK	 ?and	 ?in	 ?Canada	 ?(Mental	 ?Health	 ?Commission	 ?of	 ?Canada,	 ?2012).	 ?	 ?According	 ?to	 ?John,	 ?the	 ?vast	 ?majority	 ?of	 ?service	 ?users	 ?with	 ?whom	 ?he	 ?has	 ?worked	 ?with	 ?in	 ?the	 ?criminal	 ?justice	 ?system	 ?had	 ?a	 ?mental	 ?illness.	 ?	 ?Evidently	 ?this	 ?is	 ?a	 ?pressing	 ?social	 ?issue	 ?in	 ?both	 ?countries,	 ?and	 ?a	 ?RJ-??mental	 ?health-??social	 ?work	 ?team	 ?could	 ?provide	 ?one	 ?possible	 ?voice	 ?of	 ?advocacy.	 ?It	 ?stands	 ?to	 ?reason	 ?that	 ?each	 ?group	 ?is	 ?presently	 ?dealing	 ?with	 ?the	 ?same	 ?social	 ?issues	 ?and	 ?challenges.	 ?	 ?Consequently,	 ?it	 ?would	 ?seem	 ?sensible	 ?for	 ?these	 ?three	 ?groups	 ?to	 ?join	 ?forces	 ?and	 ?collaborate.	 ?	 ?Furthermore,	 ?RJ	 ?also	 ?has	 ?the	 ?potential	 ?to	 ?increase	 ?support	 ?for	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?who	 ?are	 ?living	 ?independently	 ?in	 ?community.	 ?	 ?Through	 ?initiatives	 ?such	 ?as	 ?neighbourhood	 ?mediation,	 ?there	 ?	 ? 76	 ?is	 ?potential	 ?for	 ?awareness	 ?to	 ?grow	 ?and	 ?neighbourly	 ?support	 ?to	 ?increase.	 ?	 ?This	 ?involvement	 ?with	 ?community	 ?could	 ?be	 ?a	 ?key	 ?strategy	 ?in	 ?addressing	 ?stigma	 ?reduction	 ?and	 ?change	 ?at	 ?the	 ?community	 ?level,	 ?a	 ?shortage	 ?of	 ?which	 ?has	 ?also	 ?been	 ?linked	 ?with	 ?the	 ?overrepresentation	 ?of	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?in	 ?the	 ?criminal	 ?justice	 ?system	 ?(Mental	 ?Health	 ?Commission	 ?of	 ?Canada,	 ?2012).	 ?Limitations	 ?and	 ?Areas	 ?for	 ?Future	 ?Research	 ?This	 ?study	 ?has	 ?several	 ?major	 ?limitations.	 ?	 ?First,	 ?although	 ?qualitative	 ?research	 ?does	 ?not	 ?require	 ?a	 ?large	 ?sample	 ?size,	 ?it	 ?would	 ?have	 ?been	 ?interesting	 ?to	 ?investigate	 ?this	 ?topic	 ?with	 ?a	 ?larger	 ?group,	 ?given	 ?the	 ?common	 ?themes	 ?that	 ?emerged	 ?from	 ?the	 ?interviews.	 ?	 ?Furthermore,	 ?all	 ?three	 ?participants	 ?eagerly	 ?provided	 ?recommendations	 ?for	 ?improving	 ?RJ	 ?practice	 ?with	 ?individuals	 ?who	 ?have	 ?mental	 ?illness.	 ?	 ?They	 ?also	 ?gave	 ?several	 ?suggestions	 ?for	 ?improving	 ?practitioner	 ?development.	 ?	 ?This	 ?is	 ?important	 ?and	 ?insightful	 ?information	 ?and	 ?could	 ?be	 ?pivotal	 ?in	 ?altering	 ?and	 ?improving	 ?RJ	 ?training	 ?and	 ?practice.	 ?	 ?Running	 ?interviews	 ?with	 ?a	 ?larger	 ?sample	 ?size	 ?could	 ?have	 ?generated	 ?a	 ?more	 ?rich	 ?collection	 ?of	 ?recommendations	 ?from	 ?practitioners,	 ?and	 ?perhaps	 ?provided	 ?more	 ?specific	 ?guidance	 ?for	 ?improvement.	 ?	 ?This	 ?may	 ?be	 ?an	 ?avenue	 ?for	 ?future	 ?research,	 ?as	 ?would	 ?be	 ?running	 ?focus	 ?groups	 ?in	 ?order	 ?to	 ?generate	 ?more	 ?plentiful	 ?data	 ?on	 ?this	 ?specific	 ?topic.	 ?Second,	 ?this	 ?study	 ?failed	 ?in	 ?its	 ?attempt	 ?to	 ?reach	 ?service	 ?users.	 ?	 ?Consequently,	 ?their	 ?voices	 ?are	 ?not	 ?present	 ?in	 ?this	 ?research,	 ?and	 ?data	 ?represent	 ?only	 ?the	 ?voices	 ?of	 ?practitioners.	 ?	 ?Given	 ?the	 ?ideological	 ?shift	 ?within	 ?the	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?community	 ?with	 ?regards	 ?to	 ?amplifying	 ?client	 ?voices,	 ?neglecting	 ?the	 ?perspectives	 ?and	 ?recommendations	 ?of	 ?service	 ?users	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?is	 ?a	 ?major	 ?weakness.	 ?	 ?Any	 ?future	 ?research	 ?should	 ?incorporate	 ?such	 ?voices;	 ?however	 ?it	 ?must	 ?be	 ?said	 ?that	 ?this	 ?study?s	 ?omission	 ?on	 ?this	 ?front	 ?was	 ?not	 ?for	 ?lack	 ?of	 ?trying.	 ?	 ?It	 ?	 ? 77	 ?appears	 ?that	 ?usage	 ?of	 ?RJ	 ?with	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?serious	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?is	 ?so	 ?rare	 ?that	 ?participants	 ?are	 ?very	 ?difficult	 ?to	 ?locate,	 ?and	 ?even	 ?more	 ?difficult	 ?to	 ?recruit	 ?for	 ?research.	 ?	 ?As	 ?a	 ?result,	 ?it	 ?is	 ?likely	 ?that	 ?their	 ?voices	 ?will	 ?remain	 ?hushed	 ?until	 ?practice	 ?of	 ?RJ	 ?amongst	 ?this	 ?population	 ?becomes	 ?more	 ?prevalent.	 ?	 ?Still,	 ?a	 ?study	 ?using	 ?participatory	 ?action	 ?research	 ?and	 ?a	 ?transformative	 ?framework	 ?could	 ?yield	 ?especially	 ?promising	 ?insights.	 ?	 ?	 ?Another	 ?limitation	 ?of	 ?this	 ?study	 ?is	 ?the	 ?exclusion	 ?of	 ?participants	 ?from	 ?the	 ?forensic	 ?and	 ?criminal	 ?justice	 ?agencies.	 ?	 ?These	 ?agencies	 ?were	 ?excluded	 ?from	 ?recruitment	 ?due	 ?to	 ?logistical	 ?constraints.	 ?	 ?These	 ?included	 ?strict	 ?inter-??agency	 ?guidelines	 ?regarding	 ?research,	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?time-??limitations	 ?for	 ?obtaining	 ?ethical	 ?approval.	 ?	 ?These	 ?agencies	 ?have	 ?their	 ?own	 ?ethics	 ?boards,	 ?and	 ?rarely	 ?allow	 ?small	 ?research	 ?studies	 ?such	 ?as	 ?mine	 ?to	 ?conduct	 ?research	 ?with	 ?their	 ?clients.	 ?	 ?The	 ?exclusion	 ?of	 ?participants	 ?from	 ?these	 ?areas	 ?is	 ?very	 ?limiting.	 ?Clients	 ?from	 ?these	 ?agencies	 ?have	 ?a	 ?greater	 ?likelihood	 ?of	 ?being	 ?part	 ?of	 ?a	 ?restorative	 ?justice	 ?process	 ?since	 ?they	 ?have	 ?committed	 ?a	 ?crime.	 ?	 ?In	 ?addition,	 ?since	 ?restorative	 ?justice	 ?has	 ?been	 ?put	 ?forward	 ?as	 ?a	 ?possible	 ?means	 ?of	 ?reducing	 ?the	 ?over-??representation	 ?of	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?in	 ?the	 ?criminal	 ?justice	 ?system	 ?(Mental	 ?Health	 ?Commission	 ?of	 ?Canada,	 ?2012),	 ?interviewing	 ?participants	 ?who	 ?are	 ?presently	 ?involved	 ?with	 ?the	 ?criminal	 ?justice	 ?system	 ?could	 ?have	 ?generated	 ?important	 ?insights	 ?and	 ?recommendations.	 ?One	 ?element	 ?that	 ?was	 ?highlighted	 ?in	 ?the	 ?interviews	 ?but	 ?received	 ?little	 ?mention	 ?in	 ?the	 ?literature	 ?was	 ?that	 ?of	 ?the	 ?apparent	 ?connection	 ?between	 ?serious	 ?and	 ?persistent	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?and	 ?drug	 ?use.	 ?	 ?Aside	 ?from	 ?a	 ?brief	 ?acknowledgement	 ?of	 ?drug-??induced	 ?psychosis	 ?resulting	 ?from	 ?chronic	 ?use	 ?of	 ?amphetamines	 ?(Kapur,	 ?2003),	 ?this	 ?angle	 ?had	 ?not	 ?been	 ?explored	 ?during	 ?the	 ?literature	 ?review	 ?yet	 ?appears	 ?especially	 ?significant	 ?for	 ?this	 ?topic	 ?of	 ?	 ? 78	 ?interest.	 ?	 ?This	 ?may	 ?be	 ?one	 ?important	 ?area	 ?of	 ?consideration	 ?for	 ?future	 ?research	 ?on	 ?this	 ?subject	 ?matter.	 ? 	 ?	 ?Although	 ?innovative	 ?research	 ?can	 ?be	 ?both	 ?exciting	 ?and	 ?inventive,	 ?the	 ?absence	 ?of	 ?previous	 ?research	 ?can	 ?present	 ?certain	 ?drawbacks.	 ?	 ?Without	 ?previous	 ?research,	 ?new	 ?concepts	 ?have	 ?to	 ?be	 ?defined	 ?for	 ?the	 ?first	 ?time,	 ?and	 ?the	 ?possibility	 ?of	 ?expert	 ?checking	 ?amongst	 ?other	 ?researchers	 ?becomes	 ?nil.	 ?	 ?As	 ?a	 ?result,	 ?the	 ?concepts	 ?and	 ?recommendations	 ?in	 ?this	 ?study	 ?are	 ?exclusively	 ?subject	 ?to	 ?the	 ?interpretation	 ?of	 ?participants	 ?and	 ?myself.	 ?	 ?There	 ?are	 ?no	 ?previous	 ?data	 ?available	 ?for	 ?comparison.	 ?	 ? Lastly	 ?this	 ?study	 ?was	 ?conducted	 ?in	 ?two	 ?countries	 ?with	 ?differing	 ?criminal	 ?justice	 ?and	 ?social	 ?service	 ?systems.	 ?	 ?Little	 ?attention	 ?was	 ?paid	 ?to	 ?acknowledging	 ?and	 ?describing	 ?these	 ?differences.	 ?	 ?The	 ?absence	 ?of	 ?Canadian	 ?participants	 ?curtailed	 ?the	 ?ability	 ?to	 ?generate	 ?implications	 ?for	 ?RJ	 ?and	 ?social	 ?work	 ?development	 ?in	 ?Canada.	 ?	 ?It	 ?is	 ?likely	 ?that	 ?the	 ?experiences	 ?of	 ?RJ	 ?practitioners	 ?in	 ?Canada	 ?could	 ?be	 ?significantly	 ?different,	 ?and	 ?this	 ?is	 ?an	 ?avenue	 ?for	 ?future	 ?research.	 ?	 ?A	 ?comparative	 ?study	 ?could	 ?yield	 ?important	 ?insights	 ?that	 ?were	 ?not	 ?captured	 ?by	 ?this	 ?small-??scale	 ?research	 ?project.	 ?	 ?Concluding	 ?Remarks	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? As	 ?seen	 ?in	 ?this	 ?thesis,	 ?restorative	 ?justice	 ?and	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?are	 ?highly	 ?compatible	 ?fields	 ?of	 ?social	 ?work	 ?practice.	 ?	 ?This	 ?study?s	 ?findings	 ?suggest	 ?that	 ?collaboration	 ?between	 ?these	 ?three	 ?areas	 ?would	 ?be	 ?optimal	 ?for	 ?creating	 ?a	 ?strong	 ?voice	 ?of	 ?advocacy	 ?and	 ?opposition	 ?in	 ?the	 ?fight	 ?against	 ?stigma.	 ?	 ?With	 ?its	 ?emphasis	 ?on	 ?social	 ?justice,	 ?social	 ?work	 ?ought	 ?to	 ?become	 ?increasingly	 ?committed	 ?to	 ?RJ	 ?practice,	 ?especially	 ?given	 ?evidence	 ?that	 ?RJ	 ?can	 ?be	 ?a	 ?powerful	 ?stigma-??fighting	 ?tool.	 ?	 ?By	 ?entering	 ?into	 ?partnership	 ?with	 ?one	 ?another,	 ?RJ	 ?and	 ?social	 ?work	 ?could	 ?find	 ?themselves	 ?at	 ?the	 ?forefront	 ?of	 ?social	 ?change,	 ?and	 ?become	 ?increasingly	 ?embedded	 ?	 ? 79	 ?in	 ?the	 ?PSR	 ?movement	 ?that	 ?is	 ?taking	 ?place	 ?in	 ?the	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?community.	 ?	 ?In	 ?a	 ?time	 ?where	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?are	 ?taking	 ?back	 ?their	 ?voice	 ?and	 ?beginning	 ?to	 ?feel	 ?empowered,	 ?to	 ?bypass	 ?such	 ?an	 ?opportunity	 ?would	 ?undermine,	 ?if	 ?not	 ?hinder,	 ?social	 ?work?s	 ?devotion	 ?to	 ?the	 ?pursuit	 ?of	 ?social	 ?justice.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? 80	 ?	 ?References	 ?American	 ?Psychiatric	 ?Association.	 ?	 ?(2012).	 ?	 ?DSM:	 ?history	 ?of	 ?the	 ?manual.	 ?	 ?Retrieved	 ?on	 ?November	 ? 14th	 ?from	 ?http://www.psychiatry.org/practice/dsm/dsm-??history-??of-??the-??manual	 ?	 ?	 ?American	 ?Psychiatric	 ?Association.	 ?	 ?(2013).	 ?	 ?DSM-?5.	 ?	 ?Washington,	 ?DC.,	 ?London,	 ?UK:	 ?American	 ? Psychiatric	 ?Association	 ?	 ?	 ?Andreasen	 ?N.C.,	 ?Carpenter	 ?W.T.,	 ?Kane	 ?J.M.,	 ?Lasser	 ?R.A.,	 ?Marder	 ?S.R.,	 ?&	 ?Weinberger	 ?D.R.	 ?	 ?(2005).	 ? Remission	 ?in	 ?schizophrenia:	 ?proposed	 ?criteria	 ?and	 ?rationale	 ?for	 ?consensus.	 ?	 ?American	 ? Journal	 ?of	 ?Psychiatry,	 ?162	 ?(3),	 ?441-??449.	 ?	 ?doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.162.3.441	 ?	 ?Bednar,	 ?L.	 ?	 ?(n.d.).	 ?	 ?Acute	 ?Psychiatric	 ?Group	 ?Therapy	 ?for	 ?hospitalized	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?serious	 ?and	 ? persistent	 ?mental	 ?illness.	 ?	 ?Minnesota	 ?State	 ?University,	 ?Mankato,	 ?Department	 ?of	 ?Social	 ?Work.	 ? Retrieved	 ?on	 ?July	 ?20th	 ?2013	 ?from	 ? http://sbs.mnsu.edu/socialwork/graduate/capstone/capstoneposters/lindsey_bednar.pdf	 ?Brown	 ?S.A.,	 ?Evans	 ?Y.,	 ?Espenschade	 ?K.,	 ?&	 ?O?Connor	 ?M.	 ?	 ?(2010).	 ?	 ?An	 ?examination	 ?of	 ?two	 ?brief	 ? stigma	 ?reduction	 ?strategies:	 ?filmed	 ?personal	 ?contact	 ?and	 ?hallucination	 ?simulations.	 ? Community	 ?Mental	 ?Health	 ?Journal,	 ?46,	 ?494-??499.	 ?	 ?doi:	 ?10.1007/s10597-??010-??9309-??1	 ?Canadian	 ?Association	 ?of	 ?Social	 ?Workers.	 ?	 ?(2005).	 ?	 ?Code	 ?of	 ?ethics	 ?	 ?Canadian	 ?Mental	 ?Health	 ?Association.	 ?	 ?(2004).	 ?	 ?Personality	 ?Disorders.	 ?	 ?Retrieved	 ?on	 ?November	 ?12th	 ? from	 ?http://www.cmha.bc.ca/get-??informed/mental-??health-??information/personality	 ? disorders	 ?	 ?	 ?Canadian	 ?Mental	 ?Health	 ?Association.	 ?	 ?(2012).	 ?	 ?Retrieved	 ?on	 ?October	 ?8	 ?2012	 ?from	 ? http://durham.cmha.ca/programs_services/rehabilitation	 ? services/#.UHbw2I4QgUU	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? 81	 ?Canadian	 ?Mental	 ?Health	 ?Association	 ?(2012).	 ?	 ?Strengthening	 ?our	 ?collective	 ?impact:	 ?a	 ?strategic	 ?plan	 ?for	 ? CMHA	 ?2012-?2017.	 ?	 ?Retrieved	 ?on	 ?October	 ?20th	 ?2013	 ?from	 ? http://www.cmha.ca/events/cmha?s-??new-??strategic-??plan-??strengthening-??our-??collective	 ? impact-??a-??strategic-??plan-??for-??cmha-??marks-??the-??beginning-??of-??a-??new-??era-??for	 ? cmha/#.UngK6SgQg20	 ?Canadian	 ?Mental	 ?Health	 ?Association.	 ?	 ?(2013).	 ?	 ?Mental	 ?Illness	 ?Glossary.	 ?	 ?Retrieved	 ?on	 ?May	 ?12th	 ?2013	 ? from	 ?http://www.cmha.ca/mental_health/mental-??illness-??glossary/#.Uoly5ygQg20	 ?Canadian	 ?Mental	 ?Health	 ?Association.	 ?	 ?(2013).	 ?	 ?Anxiety	 ?disorders.	 ?	 ?Retrieved	 ?on	 ?November	 ?13th	 ?2013	 ? from	 ?http://www.cmha.ca/mental-??health/understanding-??mental-??illness/anxiety	 ? disorders/	 ?Chaplin,	 ?R.	 ?	 ?(2000).	 ?	 ?Psychiatrist	 ?can	 ?cause	 ?stigma	 ?too.	 ?	 ?The	 ?British	 ?Journal	 ?of	 ?Psychiatry,	 ?177(5),	 ?467	 ? 470.	 ?	 ?doi:	 ?10.1192/bjp.177.5.467	 ?Correctional	 ?Service	 ?of	 ?Canada.	 ?	 ?(2012).	 ?	 ?Restorative	 ?justice	 ?factsheet.	 ?	 ?Retrieved	 ?on	 ?November	 ?19th	 ? 2013	 ?from	 ?http://www.csc-??scc.gc.ca/restorative-??justice/003005-??0004-??eng.shtml	 ?Corrigan	 ?P.W.,	 ?Larson	 ?J.E.,	 ?&	 ?Rusch	 ?N.	 ?	 ?(2009).	 ?	 ?Self-??stigma	 ?and	 ?the	 ??why-??try?	 ?effect:	 ?impact	 ?on	 ?life	 ? goals	 ?and	 ?evidence-??based	 ?practices.	 ?	 ?World	 ?Psychiatry,	 ?8(2),	 ?75-??81.	 ?Retrieved	 ?on	 ?November	 ? 25th	 ?2013	 ?from	 ?http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2694098/	 ?Coulter	 ?J.	 ?	 ?(2001).	 ?	 ?Ian	 ?Hacking	 ?on	 ?constructionism.	 ?	 ?Science,	 ?Technology,	 ?&	 ?Human	 ?Values,	 ?26(1),	 ?82-??	 ? 85.	 ?	 ?doi:	 ?	 ?	 ?Davison	 ?G.C.,	 ?Neale	 ?J.M.,	 ?&	 ?Kring	 ?A.M.	 ?	 ?(2004).	 ?	 ?Abnormal	 ?psychology:	 ?with	 ?cases	 ?(9th	 ?ed).	 ?	 ?USA:	 ?John	 ? Wiley	 ?&	 ?Sons	 ?Inc	 ?Drescher	 ?J.	 ?	 ?(2010).	 ?	 ?Queer	 ?diagnoses:	 ?parallels	 ?and	 ?contrasts	 ?in	 ?the	 ?history	 ?of	 ?homosexuality,	 ? gender	 ?variance,	 ?and	 ?the	 ?Diagnostic	 ?and	 ?Statistical	 ?Manual.	 ?	 ?Archives	 ?of	 ?Sexual	 ?Behavior,	 ? 39(2),	 ?427-??460.	 ?	 ?doi:	 ?10.1007/s10508-??009-??9531-??5	 ? 	 ? 82	 ?Eisenberg	 ?D.,	 ?Downs	 ?M.F.,	 ?&	 ?Golberstein	 ?E.	 ?	 ?(2012).	 ?	 ?Effects	 ?of	 ?contact	 ?with	 ?treatment	 ?users	 ? on	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?stigma:	 ?evidence	 ?from	 ?university	 ?roommate	 ?assignments.	 ?	 ?Social	 ? Science	 ?and	 ?Medicine,	 ?75,	 ?1122-??1127.	 ?	 ?doi:	 ?10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.05.007	 ?Estroff	 ?S.E.,	 ?Lachicotte	 ?W.S.,	 ?Illingworth	 ?L.C.,	 ?&	 ?Johnston	 ?A.	 ?	 ?(1991).	 ?	 ?Everybody?s	 ?got	 ?a	 ?little	 ?mental	 ? illness:	 ?account	 ?of	 ?illness	 ?and	 ?self	 ?among	 ?people	 ?with	 ?severe,	 ?persistent	 ?mental	 ?illnesses.	 ? Medical	 ?Anthropological	 ?Quarterly,	 ?New	 ?Series,	 ?5(4),	 ?331-??369.	 ?doi:	 ?	 ?Fee,	 ?D.	 ?	 ?(2000).	 ?The	 ?broken	 ?dialogue.	 ?	 ?In	 ?Fee,	 ?D.	 ?(ed),	 ?Pathology	 ?and	 ?the	 ?postmodern:	 ?mental	 ? illness	 ? as	 ?discourse	 ?and	 ?experience.	 ?	 ?London,	 ?UK:	 ?SAGE	 ?Publications,	 ?Inc.	 ?Felton	 ?C.J.	 ?	 ?(2002).	 ?	 ?Project	 ?Liberty:	 ?a	 ?public	 ?health	 ?response	 ?to	 ?New	 ?Yorkers?	 ?mental	 ?health	 ? needs	 ?arising	 ?from	 ?the	 ?world	 ?trade	 ?center	 ?terrorist	 ?attack.	 ?	 ?Journal	 ?of	 ?Urban	 ?Health:	 ? Bulletin	 ?of	 ?the	 ?New	 ?York	 ?Academy	 ?of	 ?Medicine,	 ?79(3),	 ?429-??433.	 ?	 ?	 ? 	 ? 	 ?	 ? doi:	 ?10.1093/jurban/79.3.429	 ?Foucault	 ?M.	 ?	 ?(1965).	 ?	 ?Madness	 ?and	 ?Civilization.	 ?	 ?New	 ?York:	 ?USA.,	 ?Toronto:	 ?Canada:	 ?Random	 ? House	 ?Inc.	 ?	 ?Foussias	 ?G.,	 ?&	 ?Remington	 ?G.	 ?	 ?(2010).	 ?	 ?Antipsychotics	 ?and	 ?schizophrenia:	 ?from	 ?efficacy	 ?and	 ? effectiveness	 ?to	 ?clinical	 ?decision-??making.	 ?	 ?Canadian	 ?Journal	 ?of	 ?Psychiatry,	 ?55(3),	 ?117	 ? 125.	 ?	 ?Retrieved	 ?on	 ?November	 ?23rd	 ?from	 ? http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid	 ? e3dc8d4d-??fbb5-??4281-??b879-??8ba3b9dd25f5%40sessionmgr13&vid=2&hid=18	 ?Fraser	 ?Health	 ?(2013).	 ?	 ?Early	 ?Psychosis	 ?Intervention.	 ?	 ?Retrieved	 ?on	 ?November	 ?19th	 ?2013	 ? from	 ?http://www.psychosissucks.ca/aboutepi.cfm	 ?Freeman	 ?M.	 ?(ed).	 ?(	 ?2010).	 ?	 ?Critical	 ?social	 ?theory	 ?and	 ?evaluation	 ?practice.	 ?	 ?New	 ?Directions	 ?for	 ? Evaluation,	 ?127,	 ?US:	 ?Wiley	 ?Periodicals,	 ?Inc	 ?	 ? 83	 ?Gould	 ?M.,	 ?Greenberg	 ?N.,	 ?&	 ?Hetherton	 ?J.	 ?	 ?(2007).	 ?	 ?Stigma	 ?and	 ?the	 ?military:	 ?evaluation	 ?of	 ?a	 ? PTSD	 ?psychoeducational	 ?program.	 ?	 ?Journal	 ?of	 ?Traumatic	 ?Stress,	 ?20(4),	 ?505-??515.	 ?	 ?doi:	 ? 10.1002/jts.20233	 ?	 ?	 ?Health	 ?Canada.	 ?	 ?(2002).	 ?	 ?A	 ?report	 ?on	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?in	 ?Canada.	 ?	 ?Ottawa:	 ?Canada.	 ?	 ?	 ?Hick	 ?S.	 ?	 ?(2007).	 ?	 ?Social	 ?welfare	 ?in	 ?Canada:	 ?understanding	 ?income	 ?security	 ?(2nd	 ?ed).	 ?	 ?Canada:	 ? Thompson	 ?Educational	 ?Publishing,	 ?Inc	 ?Kapur	 ?S.	 ?	 ?(2003).	 ?	 ?Psychosis	 ?as	 ?a	 ?state	 ?of	 ?aberrant	 ?salience:	 ?a	 ?framework	 ?linking	 ?biology,	 ? phenomenology,	 ?and	 ?pharmacology	 ?in	 ?schizophrenia.	 ?	 ?American	 ?Journal	 ?of	 ?Psychiatry,	 ?160,	 ? 13-??23.	 ?	 ?doi:	 ?10.1176/appi.ajp.160.1.13	 ?	 ?Kelly	 ?D.L.,	 ?Weiner	 ?E.,	 ?Ball	 ?M.P.,	 ?McMahon	 ?R.P.,	 ?Carpenter	 ?W.T.,	 ?&	 ?Buchanan	 ?R.W.	 ?	 ?(2009).	 ? Remission	 ?in	 ?schizophrenia:	 ?the	 ?relationship	 ?to	 ?baseline	 ?symptoms	 ?and	 ?changes	 ?in	 ? symptom	 ?domains	 ?during	 ?a	 ?one-??year	 ?study.	 ?	 ?	 ?Journal	 ?of	 ?Psychopharmacology,	 ?23	 ?(4),	 ? 436-??	 ? 441.	 ?doi:	 ?10.1177/0269881108093883	 ?Kirsch	 ?I.,	 ?Moore	 ?T.J.,	 ?Scoboria	 ?A.,	 ?&	 ?Nicholls	 ?S.S.	 ?	 ?(2002).	 ?	 ?The	 ?emperor?s	 ?new	 ?drugs:	 ?an	 ?analysis	 ?of	 ? antidepressant	 ?medication	 ?data	 ?submitted	 ?to	 ?the	 ?U.S.	 ?Food	 ?and	 ?Drug	 ?Administration.	 ? Prevention	 ?&	 ?Treatment,	 ?5(1),	 ?No	 ?pagination	 ?specified,	 ?Article	 ?23a.	 ?	 ?doi:	 ?10.1037/1522	 ? 3736.5.1.523a	 ?Lennox	 ?N.,	 ?&	 ?Chaplin	 ?R.	 ?	 ?(1996).	 ?	 ?The	 ?psychiatric	 ?care	 ?of	 ?people	 ?with	 ?intellectual	 ?disabilities:	 ?the	 ? perceptions	 ?of	 ?consultant	 ?psychiatrists	 ?in	 ?Victoria.	 ?	 ?Australian	 ?and	 ?New	 ?Zealand	 ?Journal	 ?of	 ? Psychiatry,	 ?30(6),	 ?774-??780.	 ?	 ?doi:	 ?10.3109/00048679609065044	 ?	 ?Mash	 ?E.J.,	 ?Wolfe	 ?D.A.	 ?	 ?(2005).	 ?	 ?Abnormal	 ?Child	 ?Psychology	 ?(3rd	 ?ed).	 ?	 ?USA:	 ?Wadsworth,	 ?Thomson	 ? Learning,	 ?Inc.	 ?Medicine.	 ?	 ?In	 ?Oxford	 ?Dictionary	 ?Online.	 ?	 ?(2013).	 ?	 ?Retrieved	 ?from	 ? http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/medicine	 ?	 ? 84	 ?Mental	 ?Health	 ?Commission	 ?of	 ?Canada.	 ?	 ?(2012).	 ?	 ?Changing	 ?directions,	 ?changing	 ?lives:	 ?The	 ?mental	 ? health	 ?strategy	 ?for	 ?Canada.	 ?	 ?Calgary,	 ?AB:	 ?The	 ?Mental	 ?Health	 ?Commission	 ?of	 ?Canada	 ?Mental	 ?Health	 ?Commission	 ?of	 ?Canada.	 ?	 ?(2011).	 ?	 ?Toward	 ?recovery	 ?&	 ?wellbeing:	 ?A	 ?Framework	 ? for	 ?a	 ? Mental	 ?Health	 ?Strategy	 ?for	 ?Canada.	 ?	 ?Calgary,	 ?AB:	 ?The	 ?Mental	 ?Health	 ?Commission	 ?of	 ?Canada	 ?Mertens	 ?D.M.	 ?	 ?(2009).	 ?	 ?Transformative	 ?research	 ?and	 ?evaluation.	 ?	 ?New	 ?York:	 ?The	 ?Guilford	 ?Press	 ?Ministry	 ?of	 ?Justice.	 ?	 ?(2012).	 ?	 ?Restorative	 ?justice.	 ?	 ?Retrieved	 ?on	 ?May	 ?20th	 ?2013	 ?from	 ? http://www.justice.gov.uk/youth	 ?justice/working-??with-??victims/restorative-??justice	 ?Morris	 ?A.	 ?	 ?(2002).	 ?	 ?Critiquing	 ?the	 ?critics:	 ?A	 ?brief	 ?response	 ?to	 ?critics	 ?of	 ?restorative	 ?justice.	 ?	 ?British	 ? Journal	 ?of	 ?Criminology,	 ?42,	 ?596-??615.	 ?	 ?doi:	 ?10.1093/bjc/42.3.596	 ?Norman	 ?R.M.G.,	 ?Sorrentino	 ?R.M.,	 ?Windell	 ?D.,	 ?&	 ?Manchanda	 ?R.	 ?	 ?(2008).	 ?The	 ?role	 ?of	 ?perceived	 ?norms	 ? in	 ?the	 ?stigmatization	 ?of	 ?mental	 ?illness.	 ?	 ?Social	 ?psychiatry	 ?and	 ?psychiatric	 ?epidemiology,	 ? 43(11),	 ?851-??859.	 ?	 ?doi:	 ?10.1007/s00127-??008-??0375-??4  O?Brien	 ?S.P.	 ?	 ?(2007).	 ?	 ?Restorative	 ?justice:	 ?principles,	 ?practices,	 ?and	 ?application.	 ?	 ?Prevention	 ? Researcher,	 ?14,	 ?supplement.	 ?	 ?Retrieved	 ?on	 ?October	 ?8th	 ?2012	 ?from	 ?www.TPRonline.org	 ?Operational	 ?Stress	 ?Injury	 ?Social	 ?Support.	 ?	 ?(2012).	 ?	 ?Peer	 ?support:	 ?leave	 ?none	 ?behind.	 ?	 ?Retrieved	 ?on	 ? Nov.	 ?23rd	 ?from	 ? http://www.osiss.ca/en/index.html	 ?Passer	 ?M.W.,	 ?&	 ?Smith	 ?R.E.	 ?	 ?(2001).	 ?	 ?Psychology:	 ?frontiers	 ?and	 ?applications.	 ?	 ?New	 ?York:	 ?USA:	 ?McGraw	 ? Hill	 ?Pescosolido	 ?B.A.,	 ?&	 ?Rubin	 ?B.A.	 ?	 ?(2000).	 ?	 ?The	 ?web	 ?of	 ?group	 ?affiliations	 ?revisited:	 ?social	 ?life,	 ? postmodernism,	 ?and	 ?sociology.	 ?	 ?American	 ?Sociological	 ?Review,	 ?65(1),	 ?52-??76.	 ?	 ?Retrieved	 ?from	 ? http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/stable/2657289	 ?Public	 ?Health	 ?Agency	 ?of	 ?Canada.	 ?	 ?(2012).	 ?	 ?A	 ?report	 ?on	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?in	 ?Canada.	 ?	 ?Retrieved	 ?on	 ?October	 ? 8	 ?2012	 ?from	 ?http://www.phacaspc.gc.ca/publicat/miic-??mmac/chap_3-??eng.php	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? 85	 ?Reavley	 ?N.J.,	 ?&	 ?Jorm	 ?A.F.	 ?	 ?(2011).	 ?	 ?Stigmatizing	 ?attitudes	 ?toward	 ?people	 ?with	 ?mental	 ? disorders:	 ?findings	 ?from	 ?an	 ?Australian	 ?national	 ?survey	 ?of	 ?mental	 ?health	 ?literacy	 ?and	 ? stigma.	 ?	 ?Australian	 ?and	 ?New	 ?Zealand	 ?Journal	 ?of	 ?Psychiatry,	 ?45,	 ?1086-??1093.	 ?	 ?doi:	 ? 10.3109/00048674.2011.621061	 ?Restorative	 ?Justice	 ?Council.	 ?(2012).	 ?	 ?Legislation	 ?introducing	 ?restorative	 ?justice	 ?for	 ?victims	 ?of	 ? adult	 ?offenders	 ?announced.	 ?	 ?Retrieved	 ?on	 ?May	 ?15th	 ?2013	 ?from	 ?	 ? http://www.restorativejustice.org.uk/news/rjlaw/	 ?Restorative	 ?Justice	 ?Council.	 ?	 ?(2012).	 ?	 ?What	 ?is	 ?restorative	 ?justice?	 ?	 ?Retrieved	 ?on	 ?November	 ? 19th	 ?2013	 ?from	 ?http://www.restorativejustice.org.uk/what_is_restorative_justice/	 ?	 ?Restorative	 ?Justice	 ?Council.	 ?	 ?(2013).	 ?	 ?About	 ?the	 ?restorative	 ?justice	 ?council.	 ?	 ?Retrieved	 ?on	 ?May	 ? 15th	 ?2013	 ?from	 ?http://www.restorativejustice.org.uk/about_the_rjc/	 ?Rizvi	 ?S.L.,	 ?SteffelL.M.,	 ?&	 ?Carson-??Wong	 ?A.	 ?	 ?(2012).	 ?	 ?An	 ?overview	 ?of	 ?dialectical	 ?behaviour	 ? therapy	 ?for	 ?professional	 ?psychologists.	 ?	 ?Professional	 ?Psychology:	 ?Research	 ?and	 ? Practice,	 ?Advanced	 ?online	 ?publication.	 ?doi:10.1037/a0029808	 ?Sadler	 ?M.S.,	 ?Meagor	 ?E.L.,	 ?&	 ?Kaye	 ?K.E.	 ?	 ?(2012).	 ?Stereotypes	 ?of	 ?mental	 ?disorders	 ?differ	 ?in	 ? competence	 ?and	 ?warmth.	 ?	 ?Social	 ?Science	 ?&	 ?Medicine,	 ?74(6),	 ?915-??922.	 ?	 ? 	 ? 	 ?	 ? doi:	 ?10.1016/j/socscimed.2011.12.019	 ?	 ?Sandelowski	 ?M.	 ?	 ?(2000).	 ?	 ?Focus	 ?on	 ?research	 ?methods:	 ?whatever	 ?happened	 ?to	 ?qualitative	 ? description?	 ?	 ?Research	 ?in	 ?Nursing	 ?&	 ?Health,	 ?23,	 ?334-??340.	 ?	 ?Retrieved	 ?from	 ? http://www.wou.edu/~mcgladm/Quantitative%20Methods/optional%20stuff/qualitativ	 ? %20description.pdf	 ?Sandelowski	 ?M.	 ?	 ?(2010).	 ?	 ?What?s	 ?in	 ?a	 ?name?	 ?Qualitative	 ?description	 ?revisited.	 ?	 ?Research	 ?in	 ?Nursing	 ?&	 ? Health,	 ?33,	 ?77-??84.	 ?	 ?doi:	 ?10.1002/nur.20362	 ?	 ? 86	 ?Scheff	 ?T.J.	 ?	 ?(1963).	 ?	 ?Decision	 ?rules,	 ?types	 ?of	 ?error,	 ?and	 ?their	 ?consequences	 ?in	 ?medical	 ?diagnosis.	 ? Journal	 ?of	 ?Behavioral	 ?Science,	 ?8(2),	 ?97-??107.	 ?	 ?doi:	 ?10.1002/bs.3830080202	 ?Scheff	 ?T.J.	 ?	 ?(1974).	 ?	 ?The	 ?labeling	 ?theory	 ?of	 ?mental	 ?illness.	 ?	 ?American	 ?Sociological	 ?Review,	 ? 39(3),	 ?444-??452.	 ?	 ?Retrieved	 ?on	 ?December	 ?4th	 ?2013	 ?from	 ? http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/stable/2094300	 ?	 ?Scheyett	 ?A.	 ?	 ?(2012).	 ?	 ?The	 ?mark	 ?of	 ?madness.	 ?	 ?Social	 ?Work	 ?in	 ?Mental	 ?Health,	 ?3(4),	 ?79-??97.	 ? doi:	 ?10.1300/J200v03n04_05	 ?Scull	 ?A.T.	 ?	 ?(1977).	 ?	 ?Madness	 ?and	 ?segregative	 ?control:	 ?the	 ?rise	 ?of	 ?the	 ?insane	 ?asylum.	 ?	 ?Social	 ? Problems,	 ?24(3),	 ?337-??351.	 ?	 ?doi:	 ?10.2307/80085	 ?Siddique	 ?J.,	 ?Brown	 ?C.H.,	 ?Chung	 ?J.Y.,	 ?&	 ?Miranda	 ?J.	 ?	 ?(2012).	 ?	 ?Comparative	 ?effectiveness	 ?of	 ? medication	 ?versus	 ?cognitive-??behavioral	 ?therapy	 ?in	 ?a	 ?randomized	 ?controlled	 ? trial	 ?of	 ? low-??income	 ?young	 ?minority	 ?women	 ?with	 ?depression.	 ?	 ?Journal	 ?of	 ?Consulting	 ?and	 ? Clinical	 ?Psychology.	 ?	 ?Advanced	 ?online	 ?publication.	 ?doi:10.1037/a0030452	 ?Stratta	 ?P.,	 ?Donda	 ?P.,	 ?Rossi	 ?A.,	 ?&	 ?Rossi	 ?A.	 ?	 ?(2005).	 ?Executive	 ?function	 ?assessment	 ?of	 ?patients	 ?with	 ? schizophrenic	 ?disorder	 ?residual	 ?type	 ?in	 ?olanzapine	 ?treatment:	 ?An	 ?open	 ?study.	 ?	 ?Human	 ? Psychopharmacology,	 ?20,	 ?401-??408.	 ?	 ?doi:	 ?10.1002/hup.703	 ?Sullivan	 ?D.,	 ?&	 ?Tifft	 ?L.	 ?	 ?(2005).	 ?Restorative	 ?justice:	 ?Healing	 ?the	 ?foundations	 ?of	 ?our	 ?everyday	 ?lives	 ? (2nded).New	 ?York:	 ?Willow	 ?Tee	 ?Press,	 ?Inc.	 ?Sussex	 ?Police.	 ?	 ?(n.d.).	 ?	 ?Community	 ?Resolution.	 ?	 ?Retrieved	 ?on	 ?May	 ?17th	 ?2013	 ?from	 ? https://www.sussex.police.uk/media/276025/community_resolution_main_2013.pdf	 ?Townsend	 ?J.M.	 ?	 ?(1982).	 ?	 ?Psychiatric	 ?versus	 ?social	 ?factors:	 ?an	 ?attempt	 ?at	 ?integration.	 ?	 ?Human	 ? Relations,	 ?35(9),	 ?785-??804.	 ?	 ?doi:	 ?10.1177/001872678203500907	 ?	 ? 87	 ?Van	 ?Wormer	 ?K.	 ?	 ?(2004).	 ?Restorative	 ?justice:	 ?A	 ?model	 ?for	 ?personal	 ?and	 ?societal	 ?empowerment.	 ? Journal	 ?of	 ?religion	 ?&	 ?spirituality	 ?in	 ?social	 ?work,	 ?23(4),	 ?103-??120.	 ?	 ? 	 ? 	 ?	 ? doi:	 ?10.1300/J377v23n04_07	 ?Wenzel	 ?M,	 ?Okimoto	 ?T.G.,	 ?Feather	 ?N.T.,	 ?&	 ?Platow	 ?M.J.	 ?	 ?(2008).	 ?	 ?Retributive	 ?and	 ?restorative	 ?justice.	 ? Law	 ?&	 ?Human	 ?Behavior,	 ?32(5),	 ?375-??389.	 ?doi:	 ?10.1007/s10979-??007-??9116-??6	 ?Whitaker,	 ?R.	 ?	 ?(2010).	 ?	 ?Anatomy	 ?of	 ?an	 ?epidemic:	 ?magic	 ?bullets,	 ?psychiatric	 ?drugs,	 ?and	 ?the	 ?astonishing	 ? rise	 ?of	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?in	 ?America.	 ?	 ?Retrieved	 ?from	 ?iBooks.	 ?	 ?World	 ?Health	 ?Organization.	 ?	 ?(1996).	 ?	 ?Psychosocial	 ?rehabilitation:	 ?A	 ?consensus	 ?statement.	 ? Geneva:	 ?Division	 ?of	 ?Mental	 ?Health	 ?and	 ?Prevention	 ?of	 ?Substance	 ?Abuse	 ?Zehr	 ?H.	 ?	 ?(2008).	 ?Doing	 ?justice,	 ?healing	 ?trauma:	 ?The	 ?role	 ?of	 ?restorative	 ?justice	 ?in	 ?peacebuilding.	 ?	 ? Peace	 ?Prints:	 ?South	 ?Asian	 ?Journal	 ?of	 ?Peacebuilding,	 ?1(1),	 ?1-??16	 ?	 ? 	 ?


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items