Mental Health Treatment: Prisons vs. Hospitals Compared
This paper compares two contrasting approaches to managing individuals with mental health conditions: incarceration in the Ohio prison system and specialized hospital care at a Hartford, Connecticut facility. Drawing on video reports and peer-reviewed research by Harner and Riley (2013) and Gonzalez and Connell (2014), the paper argues that housing mentally ill individuals in prisons worsens their conditions, increases recidivism, and raises long-term healthcare costs. By contrast, purpose-built hospital environments that prioritize patient comfort and safety offer a more humane and effective model of care. The paper concludes that communities must invest in sustained, treatment-centered mental health infrastructure rather than relying on the criminal justice system as a default response.
- Introduction: Two Extremes of Mental Health Response: Contrasts prison and hospital approaches to mental health
- The Prison System as a Mental Health Setting: Research shows prisons worsen mental health outcomes
- Hospital-Based Care: The Hartford Model: Hartford hospital invests in patient-centered mental health rooms
- The Need for a Middle Ground: Argues for sustained treatment over short-term incarceration
- Community Responsibility and Long-Term Solutions: Communities must fund long-term mental health infrastructure
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Uses a clear comparative framework — contrasting the Ohio prison system with the Hartford hospital — to structure the argument logically from start to finish.
- Integrates peer-reviewed sources (Harner & Riley, 2013; Gonzalez & Connell, 2014) to validate claims made from video evidence, strengthening credibility.
- Moves naturally from description to analysis to policy recommendation, giving the essay a purposeful arc despite its brevity.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective use of source synthesis: rather than citing each study in isolation, the writer explicitly connects Gonzalez and Connell (2014) to Harner and Riley (2013) to show convergent findings, then uses both to support a unified argument about treatment discontinuity and its consequences. This shows a reader how multiple sources corroborate a single claim.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by establishing the two extremes under comparison, then devotes a paragraph to each side with supporting evidence. A transitional paragraph calls for a middle ground, and the conclusion broadens the argument to community-level responsibility. At roughly 500 words, it is a tightly constructed short-response essay organized around contrast and synthesis.
Introduction: Two Extremes of Mental Health Response
Two media reports — a news piece on Connecticut's "purple pods" used in a Hartford hospital and a Frontline special on prisons and mental health — both highlight a fundamental problem in how society copes with and treats individuals experiencing mental illness. They also portray two extremes of society's response to mental health issues. The Hartford hospital represents one extreme, in which the patient's comfort and security are top priorities: mental health patients are given specially constructed rooms where safety mechanisms and soothing features have been built into the environment. The Ohio prison system described in the Frontline documentary represents the other extreme, where prisons essentially function as mental health hospitals because the mental health facilities in Columbus are no longer able to tend to the needs of patients. Those patients end up being arrested for whatever reason and must be looked after by the state.
The difference is stark. In the prison, individuals suffering from mental health problems are behind bars, locked in cuffs, or shackled at the ankles; violence — both self-directed and inflicted by officers — is commonplace. In the Hartford hospital, by contrast, safety and comfort are the defining features of the new rooms, and the patient's peace of mind is the top priority.
The Prison System as a Mental Health Setting
As Harner and Riley (2013) note, "without appropriate intervention during incarceration, there is the potential for these conditions to worsen during confinement" (p. 26). Their study demonstrates that placing mental health patients in prisons without providing adequate treatment is a lose-lose scenario: prisons must cope with inmates they cannot possibly assist, while inmates fail to receive the type of treatment they need.
Gonzalez and Connell (2014) support the findings of Harner and Riley (2013) in their study of mental health in prisons, showing that "a substantial portion of the prison population is not receiving treatment for mental health conditions. This treatment discontinuity has the potential to affect both recidivism and health care costs on release from prison" (p. 2328). Together, both studies suggest that mental health patients need to be treated in hospital settings — not by prison guards in facilities where prisoners are kept in chains or behind bars. Such a setting is not conducive to improving one's mental health, and the Frontline documentary illustrates this reality vividly.
References
Gonzalez, M., & Connell, N. (2014). Mental health of prisoners: Identifying barriers to mental health treatment and medication continuity. American Journal of Public Health, 104(12), 2328–2333.
Harner, H., & Riley, S. (2013). The impact of incarceration on women's mental health. Qualitative Health Research, 23(1), 26–42.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.