Treatment Before Jail? New Jersey’s Approach to Mental Illness and Crime

I have visited a jail before, and one question stayed with me afterward: what happens when someone enters

that environment already struggling with a serious mental health problem? Jail can punish a crime, but

punishment alone may not address the condition connected to the behavior. That is the problem New Jersey’s mental health diversion law is trying to confront.

On December 21, 2023, New Jersey enacted P.L. 2023, c.188, creating a Statewide Mental Health Diversion Program. The law focuses on people with serious mental disorders whose conditions are connected to their alleged offenses. Eligible participants can receive mental health treatment, case management, and other services through diversion from the traditional criminal justice process. The program aims to reduce incarceration, recidivism, and rehospitalization while improving public safety.

A diagnosis by itself does not automatically keep someone out of the criminal justice process. The law requires a “nexus,” or connection, between the person’s mental disorder and the alleged crime, as determined by a licensed mental health professional. Prosecutors also have substantial influence over who receives diversion. They consider the circumstances of the offense, the relationship between the disorder and the conduct, treatment options, victims’ views, prior convictions, and public safety.

That balance matters to me. Mental health support should reach people earlier, before their condition contributes to behavior that brings them into contact with police or courts. Once a crime has happened, treatment does not have to replace accountability. New Jersey’s law reflects that idea by combining diversion with attention to victims and public safety.

My visit to a jail is one reason this issue feels different to me on paper than it does in practice. Being inside that environment made me think about what incarceration may feel like for someone already living with a serious mental health problem. From what I observed, I felt that the environment could make an existing condition more difficult rather than address the problem behind the person’s behavior. It made me question whether incarceration alone is always an effective response.

The law also raises a harder question about access. Because prosecutors have considerable discretion, diversion may depend in part on how that discretion is exercised. Cases differ, and public safety matters, but prosecutorial decision-making becomes an important part of how the policy works in practice.

The policy has also moved beyond the law on paper. In August 2025, the New Jersey Attorney General announced grants to create or expand mental health diversion programs across 10 judicial vicinages and 13 counties. Some grants supported new programs, while others helped expand or sustain existing ones. That expansion is a concrete effect after the law was enacted.

Expansion, however, is not proof of long-term success. Reducing recidivism and rehospitalization are goals written into the law, but the official sources used here do not show that those outcomes have already been achieved statewide. More evidence is needed to understand the program’s longer-term impact.

New Jersey’s approach shows that entering the criminal justice system does not have to close the door to mental health treatment. Diversion creates another option after an alleged crime, but it also points to a larger problem: treatment often comes too late. Earlier mental health support may help prevent some people from reaching the justice system at all, while treatment and accountability can still work together when a crime occurs.