INTRODUCTION
Mental health constitutes an essential component of an individual's well-being and one of the basic elements for the normal functioning of society. However, despite developments in the fields of psychiatry, psychology, and human rights, people with mental disorders continue to face prejudice and various forms of discrimination. In many cases, the diagnosis of a mental disorder is accompanied by stereotypes that portray these individuals as dangerous, unpredictable, or incapable of making rational decisions. These perceptions affect not only how they are treated by society but also the approach of the institutions responsible for protecting their rights.
This issue becomes even more complex when persons with mental disorders come into contact with the criminal justice system. In these cases, they often face a double form of stigmatization, as they may simultaneously experience stigma associated with their mental disorder and stigma associated with their criminal history. As a result, there is a risk that they are perceived mainly through diagnosis or criminal offenses, while their needs for treatment, rehabilitation, and support remain secondary. Such an approach can affect not only the rehabilitation process but also their ability to reintegrate into society after completing criminal proceedings or treatment.
In the Republic of Kosovo, the legal framework provides mechanisms for the protection and treatment of persons with mental disorders who have committed criminal offenses, based on domestic legislation and international human rights standards. However, the practical application of these standards and related professional challenges remain little addressed in the local literature. In particular, there is a lack of studies examining professionals' perceptions of stigmatization and its impact on the legal, health, and social treatment of this population.
Based on this, this study aims to analyze how the stigmatization of people with mental disorders who have committed criminal offenses is perceived and treated, relying on the experiences and assessments of professionals working directly with this category. Through a qualitative approach, the study focuses on identifying social and institutional perceptions, challenges related to treatment, rehabilitation, and reintegration, as well as factors influencing the creation or reduction of stigma.
RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The meaning and forms of stigma
One of the most influential theoretical accounts of stigma was developed by sociologist Erving Goffman in his classic work Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity (1963). According to Goffman, stigma represents a characteristic or attribute of an individual that, in a certain social context, is perceived as negative and leads to the devaluation of that person's identity.
In this sense, a person with a mental disorder faces not only the difficulties arising from their health condition but also the way society perceives this condition. A psychiatric diagnosis can transform from a health issue into a social label, which affects how an individual is treated by others and their opportunities for equal integration into society (Goffman, 1963).
In contemporary literature, the concept of stigma has been further developed by Link and Phelan (2001), who argue that stigma is not just a process of labeling individuals, but a complex phenomenon involving several interconnected elements. According to them, stigma is created when a social group identifies a certain difference in an individual, links that difference to negative stereotypes, and then creates a division between “us” and “them”.
This concept is especially important in the case of people with mental disorders, because a psychiatric diagnosis is often accompanied by stereotypes that portray these individuals as unstable, unpredictable, or potentially dangerous. Although most people with mental disorders do not pose a risk to others, such perceptions continue to influence how they are treated in the community and by public institutions (Corrigan and Watson, 2002).
Stigma can take different forms. First, public stigma is related to the attitudes, beliefs, and negative reactions of society toward people with mental disorders. In many cases, lack of information and the influence of stereotypes cause mental disorders to be perceived more as a threat than as a health condition requiring treatment and support (Fox et al., 2018).
Institutional stigma is related to how organizations and institutions can create or maintain practices that place certain individuals in less favorable positions. In the case of people with mental disorders, this can manifest through the lack of adequate services, lack of professional training, approaches oriented more toward control than rehabilitation, as well as difficulties in ensuring equal treatment within public systems (Corrigan et al., 2003).
Within criminal justice, the concept of stigma takes on an even more complex dimension. Persons with mental disorders who have committed criminal offenses often face a combination of two forms of labeling: first, labeling related to the suspected or committed criminal offense, and second, labeling related to their mental state. This combination can influence how they are perceived by actors in the criminal justice system, creating the risk that the individual is evaluated not only for the specific action but also through biases related to their diagnosis.
The connection between mental disorders and the perception of criminality
In recent decades, numerous studies have shown that a diagnosis of a mental disorder cannot, in itself, be considered an indicator of criminal behavior or dangerousness. The link between mental disorders and criminality is influenced by a range of other factors, such as psychoactive substance abuse, social exclusion, unemployment, lack of family support, poverty, and lack of access to treatment. Therefore, reducing this phenomenon solely to psychiatric diagnosis is not only scientifically inaccurate but also contributes to strengthening prejudices against this category of people.
One of the most cited studies in this field is that of Steadman et al. (1998), who analyzed the link between mental disorders and community violence. The authors concluded that people with mental disorders who are not associated with alcohol or drug abuse do not exhibit significantly higher levels of violence than the general population. Conversely, the risk increases significantly when mental disorders are combined with other factors, especially addiction to psychoactive substances.
Forensic psychiatry literature also points out that there is no linear relationship between mental disorders and criminality. The study by Fazel and Grann (2006), based on data from Swedish national registries, shows that most people with mental disorders do not commit violent acts and that social, economic, and clinical factors play a much more important role in risk assessment.
From the perspective of human rights, an approach based on stereotypes is problematic because it contradicts the principle of individual evaluation of each case. Instead of decision-making relying on general assumptions about people with mental disorders, it should be based on concrete evidence, professional expertise, and the individual's specific circumstances. Only such an approach can guarantee a balance between protecting public safety and respecting the fundamental rights of persons with mental disorders.
The impact of stigma on the treatment of persons with mental disorders in the criminal justice system
Although risk assessment is an important element in criminal justice, contemporary literature emphasizes that the diagnosis of a mental disorder cannot be used as the sole indicator of an individual's dangerousness. Such an assessment should be based on specific clinical, social, and individual factors, and not on general assumptions related to the category of people with mental disorders (Whiting et al., 2021).
The role of professionals in the criminal justice system is especially important in this regard. The police, prosecutors, judges, and correctional staff face situations where they must balance public safety demands with respect for the fundamental rights of the individual. In the absence of appropriate mental health training, there is a risk that institutional responses will be influenced by stereotypes rather than an objective assessment of the situation.
During the judicial phase, stigma can influence how the accused is perceived and the assessment of their personal characteristics. Although the court must rely on evidence and professional expertise, general perceptions of people with mental disorders can directly or indirectly influence how risk, responsibility, or the need for certain measures are assessed (Howell et al., 2022).
Another important dimension is the treatment of persons with mental disorders in correctional institutions. Studies show that these individuals often face increased difficulties in the penitentiary system due to the combination of freedom restrictions and special health needs. When appropriate treatment and rehabilitation services are lacking, there is a risk that correctional institutions function more as control mechanisms than as environments that contribute to improving the individual's condition (Fazel et al., 2016).
Legal protection and international standards for the treatment of persons with mental disorders
The development of international human rights law and reforms in the field of mental health have gradually changed this approach, placing human dignity, individual autonomy, and equality before the law at the center. Today, international standards require that persons with mental disorders should not be treated as protected objects, but as full bearers of fundamental rights and freedoms, regardless of their involvement in criminal proceedings (World Health Organization, 2023).
One of the most important instruments in this field is the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which marked a significant shift in how the legal protection of persons with disabilities is conceptualized, including persons with mental disorders when these disorders create long-term barriers to their full and effective participation in society. The Convention is based on the principles of respecting human dignity, individual autonomy, non-discrimination, full participation, and equality of opportunity (United Nations, 2006).
At the same time, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) offers important guarantees for the protection of this category of persons. Although the Convention does not contain specific provisions for persons with mental disorders, its case law has developed important standards regarding the right to liberty and security, the right to a fair trial, respect for private life, and the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment. These guarantees require that any restriction of rights be based on law, be proportionate, and be supported by an individual assessment of the specific circumstances, avoiding decision-making based on stereotypes or prejudices (Council of Europe, 1950).
In the joint directive published in 2023, these institutions emphasize that mental health legislation should move away from traditional models mainly oriented toward control and institutionalization and be based on respecting autonomy, informed consent, social inclusion, and the provision of community services. The document emphasizes that modern laws must address not only clinical treatment but also stigma and discrimination, which continue to constitute serious obstacles to the effective realization of the rights of persons with mental disorders (World Health Organization, 2023).
These standards take on special importance in the criminal justice system, where persons with mental disorders may face restrictions on their freedom and decisions that directly affect their fundamental rights. (Thornicroft et al., 2022). For this reason, any intervention must be based on a professional, individual, and evidence-based assessment, respecting the principle of proportionality. The mere existence of a psychiatric diagnosis should not be considered a justification for restricting rights or for less favorable treatment. Instead, international standards require decision-making to be based on independent expertise, procedural guarantees, and effective judicial oversight.
The legal framework for the treatment of persons with mental disorders in the Republic of Kosovo
An important starting point for this analysis is the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo, which establishes fundamental human rights and freedoms based on the legal order. Article 21 establishes that fundamental rights and freedoms are indivisible, inviolable, and the foundation of the legal order of the Republic of Kosovo. Furthermore, Article 22 of the Constitution defines the direct implementation and priority of international human rights agreements and instruments, including the ECHR. Also, Article 23 of the Constitution guarantees the inviolability of human dignity, while Article 24 establishes equality before the law and equal legal protection without discrimination (Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo, 2008).
From a criminal law perspective, the principal legal framework is provided by the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kosovo (Code no. 06/L-074). Among other things, the Code also regulates mandatory treatment measures. According to Article 83 of the Criminal Code, a person with a mental disorder must be treated with humanity and respect for the essential dignity of the human being. Furthermore, this provision requires that applicable international standards for persons with mental disorders be respected during their treatment (Criminal Code of the Republic of Kosovo, 2019).
An important element of this provision is also the requirement for proportionality. The Criminal Code stipulates that the measure of compulsory psychiatric treatment should not be ordered if it is not proportional to the severity of the offense, the risk posed by the person, and the specific circumstances of the case. This approach aligns with international standards, which require that restrictions on persons with mental disorders be necessary, justified, and individualized.
The Criminal Code provides for several forms of compulsory treatment measures, including:
mandatory psychiatric treatment and custody in a health care institution;
mandatory psychiatric treatment at liberty; and
mandatory rehabilitation treatment of persons addicted to drugs or alcohol.
In practice, the procedure may involve a psychiatric evaluation where there are grounds to question whether the defendant had a mental disorder or substantially diminished mental capacity at the time the criminal offense was committed. The Code of Criminal Procedure authorizes the court, at any stage of the criminal procedure, to order a psychiatric examination to assess the criminal responsibility of the defendant and his ability to participate in the trial (Criminal Procedure Code, 2022).
If the expertise determines that the person lacked criminal responsibility due to a mental disorder at the time of committing the criminal offense and there is a serious risk of repetition of the criminal behavior, the court may impose the measure of compulsory psychiatric treatment with detention in a health institution. In cases where the risk level is lower and treatment can be provided outside the institution, the measure of compulsory psychiatric treatment while free may be imposed (Criminal Procedure Code, 2022).
The execution of these measures is carried out in cooperation between the courts, health institutions, and the Kosovo Correctional Service. The Law on the Execution of Criminal Sanctions stipulates that persons subjected to psychiatric treatment measures must be treated according to their health condition, ensuring medical supervision, periodic review of the need to continue the measure, and respect for their rights throughout the entire period of treatment (Law on the Execution of Criminal Sanctions, 2022).
Research methodology
This study employed a qualitative research approach to examine how the stigmatization of persons with mental disorders who have committed criminal offenses is perceived and addressed in practice. A qualitative approach was considered appropriate because the issue under examination involves not only legal aspects of criminal responsibility but also social, institutional, and professional dimensions that cannot be fully understood through quantitative data alone. The study therefore focused on the experiences, observations, and professional assessments of individuals who encounter these issues in their work.
For the purposes of this study, the term “persons with mental disorders who have committed criminal offenses” is used to refer to the category of persons examined through the professional experiences and assessments of the study participants. The study participants themselves were professionals from the mental health, psychological, legal, and correctional fields. This terminology is used consistently throughout the manuscript to distinguish the population under examination from broader categories such as persons involved in criminal proceedings or persons in conflict with the law.
Participants were selected through purposive sampling. This method was used to include professionals with relevant knowledge or practical experience in dealing with persons with mental disorders who have committed criminal offenses. The intention was not to obtain a statistically representative sample, but rather to bring together perspectives from different professional fields involved in the treatment, assessment, and legal handling of this category of persons.
Participants were contacted through the institutions in which they worked. The main inclusion criterion was relevant professional experience in working with persons with mental disorders or in dealing with issues related to their treatment, assessment, rehabilitation, or involvement in the criminal justice system. This criterion ensured that the participants were able to provide observations and assessments based on their professional experience rather than on general perceptions of the issue.
A total of 17 professionals participated in the study. They included five psychiatrists and mental health experts, four clinical psychologists, five legal professionals (judges, prosecutors, and lawyers), and three officials working in correctional institutions (Table 1).
Table 1.
Professional groups of study participants
| Participant group | n | Main perspective represented |
|---|---|---|
| Psychiatrists and mental health experts | 5 | Mental health assessment, treatment, risk perception, and rehabilitation |
| Clinical psychologists | 4 | Psychological aspects of stigma, reha-bilitation, and individual well-being |
| Judges, prosecutors, and lawyers | 5 | Legal and criminal justice treatment and institutional decision-making |
| Correctional institution officials | 3 | Institutional treatment, rehabilitation, and reintegration |
| Total | 17 |
The interviews were conducted during May and June 2026 and lasted approximately 20–30 min each. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews. This format provided a common framework for all interviews while also allowing participants sufficient flexibility to elaborate on issues arising from their professional experience. The interviews focused on four main areas: social perceptions of persons with mental disorders who have committed criminal offenses; possible forms of institutional stigmatization and their influence on legal, health, and social treatment; challenges related to rehabilitation and reintegration; and professional views on measures that could improve institutional policies and practices.
During the interviews, notes were taken to document the participants' responses and the main issues raised in the discussion. Particular attention was given to recurring observations, differences between professional perspectives, and examples that helped explain how stigma may affect the treatment and reintegration of persons with mental disorders within and beyond the criminal justice system. The interview material used for the analysis was therefore based on the notes recorded during the interviews rather than on audio-recorded and verbatim-transcribed material.
The collected material was examined manually using descriptive content analysis. The analytical approach was predominantly deductive, as four broad areas of analysis had been defined in advance based on the semi-structured interview questions: (1) social perceptions and prejudices toward persons with mental disorders who have committed criminal offenses; (2) institutional challenges in their treatment and management; (3) difficulties related to rehabilitation and social reintegration; and (4) the need to improve institutional approaches, professional capacities, and inter-institutional cooperation. At the same time, the analysis remained open to recurring issues and observations raised by participants within these broader areas.
The analysis began with a careful and repeated review of the interview notes in order to identify recurring ideas, experiences, and concerns raised by the participants. Relevant statements addressing similar issues were grouped together and compared across interviews and professional groups. Through this process, recurring patterns and points of difference were identified and organized within the four predefined areas. Particular attention was given to issues that appeared repeatedly in the interview material, while differences associated with the participants' professional roles were also considered. These four areas subsequently provided the structure for the organization and presentation of the findings.
Both authors participated in the analysis of the interview material. The identified patterns, their categorization, and the interpretation of the findings were discussed jointly by the authors. Where differences in interpretation arose, these were discussed, and the interview notes were revisited until agreement was reached on the appropriate categorization and interpretation. The analysis was conducted manually, and no qualitative data analysis software was used.
No formal reflexive journal was maintained during the study. However, both authors were mindful that their own professional perspectives could influence the interpretation of the interview material. To enhance the credibility and consistency of the analysis, the categorization and interpretation of the findings were discussed jointly and checked against the original interview notes before the findings were finalized.
Ethical considerations
Ethical considerations were taken into account throughout the research process, particularly because the study involved professionals sharing their experiences and perceptions related to a sensitive area of mental health and criminal justice. Participation in the study was voluntary, and all participants were informed about the purpose of the research and the way in which the information obtained through the interviews would be used. Informed consent was obtained from each participant before the interview.
Confidentiality and anonymity were maintained during the collection, analysis, and presentation of the data. No names or other information that could directly identify individual participants were included in the research findings. The information obtained through the interviews was used solely for the purposes of this study. Interview notes were kept in physical form and stored securely, with access limited to the researcher. Participants are identified only according to their general professional group where this is relevant to the interpretation of the findings.
The study did not receive formal approval from an ethics committee. Nevertheless, the research process followed the basic ethical principles applicable to qualitative research involving professional participants, including voluntary participation, informed consent, confidentiality, anonymity, and respect for the participants throughout the research process.
EMPIRICAL FINDINGS FROM THE INTERVIEWS
From the thematic analysis of the interviews, four main areas have been identified that describe how stigma manifests and what its consequences are: social perception and prejudices against people with mental disorders, institutional challenges in addressing them, difficulties in rehabilitation and reintegration, as well as the need to improve institutional approaches (Table 2).
Table 2.
Main themes identified from the interview material
| Main theme | Key issues identified |
|---|---|
| Social perceptions and prejudice | Perceived association between mental disorders, dangerousness, and criminal behavior; generalization of individual cases; social stigma |
| Institutional challenges | Limited specialized capacities; risk management; professional training; inter-institutional coordination |
| Rehabilitation and reintegration | Continuity of treatment and support; employment; community acceptance; family and social support |
| Improvement of institutional approaches | Individualized treatment; stronger institutional cooperation; specialized programs; continuous professional education |
Participants described this perception as an important source of stigma, particularly because it may continue to influence how the individual is viewed after involvement in criminal proceedings. In many cases, the criminal offense and psychiatric diagnosis create a new social identity for the person, where personal characteristics, life history, and the possibility of change are relegated.
The results show that there is a tendency to generalize individual cases and to create the belief that all persons with mental disorders pose a risk to the community. This perception was also reflected in the accounts of the professionals interviewed. A mental health professional (MHP1) emphasized that, in practice, the existence of a mental disorder is sometimes enough for a person to be perceived as potentially dangerous, even though such an assessment does not necessarily reflect the individual's actual condition or level of risk. The participant further noted that when a mental disorder is combined with a history of criminal offending, this perception may become even stronger and may continue to influence how the person is viewed after treatment. A legal professional (LP1) similarly highlighted that the psychiatric diagnosis can become a dominant characteristic through which the individual is perceived, while other circumstances of the case and the possibility of rehabilitation may receive less attention.
One of the identified issues relates to the fact that this category requires a special approach, which combines legal, health, and social aspects. However, in practice, there are difficulties related to the lack of specialized capacities, the absence of continuous treatment programs, and the need for better coordination among the responsible institutions.
These concerns were also reflected in the perspectives of the legal professionals participating in the study. Judges, prosecutors, and lawyers emphasized that cases involving persons with mental disorders require particular attention, as legal decision-making should take into account not only the nature and circumstances of the criminal offense, but also the individual's mental condition, professional psychiatric assessment, and specific treatment needs. Participants from this group also highlighted the importance of avoiding generalized assumptions about dangerousness and of assessing each case individually. From their perspective, one of the main challenges for the criminal justice system is to maintain an appropriate balance between public safety, the legal consequences of the offense, and the treatment and rehabilitation needs of the individual. One of the legal professionals summarized this challenge as follows:
“When dealing with a person with a mental disorder who has committed a criminal offense, the diagnosis itself should not determine how that person is treated. Each case has its own circumstances and requires an individual assessment. The criminal offense must certainly be taken into account, but at the same time we need to consider the person's mental condition, the professional psychiatric assessment, and the need for appropriate treatment. The real challenge is to protect public safety without overlooking the fact that the person also needs treatment and has the possibility of rehabilitation.”
(LP2)
Another identified problem is the lack of specialized training for all professionals who have contact with this category of people. Limited knowledge about mental disorders and adequate communication methods can influence the creation of professional distance and reinforce stigmatizing perceptions. The institutional dimension was also emphasized by participants from different professional backgrounds. One mental health (MHP2) professional pointed out that the treatment of these cases cannot be the responsibility of a single institution, since the needs of the individual often involve psychiatric treatment, legal assessment, and social support at the same time. A legal professional (LP3) also stressed that difficulties arise when coordination between the relevant institutions is insufficient, particularly when there is no clear continuity between the measures imposed within the criminal justice system and the treatment and support required by the individual. Participants therefore viewed stronger cooperation between justice, health, and social services as an important condition for more appropriate and individualized treatment.
The results show that social stigma often becomes a barrier even after treatment or punishment ends. Difficulties in finding a job, acceptance by the community, and forming social relationships are significantly influenced by society's negative perception of this category. The difficulties of reintegration were particularly emphasized by participants with experience in mental health and correctional settings. Participants noted that the completion of treatment or an institutional measure does not necessarily mean that the individual's difficulties have ended, as returning to the community may bring a new set of challenges. Particular concerns were raised regarding employment, rebuilding social relationships, acceptance by the community, and the availability of continued professional and family support. One participant working in the mental health field summarized these difficulties as follows:
“From our professional experience, the difficulties do not end when treatment or the institutional measure is completed. Returning to the community can be particularly challenging, because these individuals often continue to face prejudice and rejection. Finding employment, rebuilding social relationships, and being accepted by the community can become serious obstacles to reintegration. For this reason, continued professional, family, and social support is particularly important after the person returns to the community.”
(MHP3)
A correctional professional similarly emphasized the importance of continuity of support after the individual leaves the institution, particularly in cases where adequate family, social, and professional support is limited. (CRP1).
A recurring finding across the interviews was the need for a change in approach toward people with mental disorders who have committed criminal offenses. The results suggest that a model based solely on isolation and control is not sufficient to address the complex needs of this category.
The need for a broader change in institutional practice was also a recurring point in the interviews. Participants emphasized that an approach focused primarily on isolation and risk control cannot adequately address the complex needs of persons with mental disorders who have committed criminal offenses. One of the professionals working in the mental health field stressed the importance of looking beyond the diagnosis and the criminal offense and assessing each person according to their individual condition, treatment needs, and prospects for rehabilitation. Participants also emphasized that continuous professional training and stronger cooperation between institutions could contribute not only to better treatment but also to reducing stigmatizing attitudes within the institutions themselves.
DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS
This study aimed to examine how the stigmatization of persons with mental disorders who have committed criminal offenses is perceived and addressed, with particular attention to the experiences and assessments of professionals who come into contact with this category in their work. The findings of the present study indicate that stigma is not limited to negative social attitudes toward persons with mental disorders, but may also be reflected in institutional practices and in the difficulties these individuals encounter during treatment, rehabilitation, and reintegration.
One of the main findings emerging directly from the interviews concerns the tendency to associate mental disorders with dangerousness and criminal behavior. Participants described situations in which the existence of a mental disorder may influence how an individual is perceived, particularly when the person has also been involved in criminal proceedings. According to the participants, the combination of a psychiatric diagnosis and a criminal history may reinforce perceptions of unpredictability or risk, even where such perceptions are not based on an individualized assessment of the person concerned.
This finding is consistent with previous literature on mental health stigma, which has identified dangerousness and unpredictability as persistent stereotypes associated with persons with mental disorders. Corrigan and Watson (2002), for example, emphasize that perceptions of dangerousness can contribute to fear, social distancing, and discriminatory attitudes. At the same time, previous empirical research has shown that the relationship between mental disorders and violent or criminal behavior is considerably more complex and cannot be explained by psychiatric diagnosis alone. Factors such as substance abuse and broader social circumstances may play an important role in this relationship (Fazel and Grann, 2006; Steadman et al., 1998).
This finding can be interpreted through Goffman's (1963) concept of stigma, according to which a particular characteristic may become socially discrediting and influence the way the individual is perceived by others. In the context examined in this study, the psychiatric diagnosis and the criminal history may together become defining elements of the individual's social identity.
At the same time, the findings suggest that institutional difficulties are not necessarily the result of intentionally discriminatory attitudes. Participants identified limitations in specialized capacities, continuity of treatment, professional training, and coordination between the institutions involved.
These structural difficulties may contribute to situations in which greater emphasis is placed on behavioral control and risk management, while the rehabilitative dimension remains less developed.
These findings can be considered in light of previous research emphasizing the particular challenges faced by persons with mental disorders within criminal justice and correctional systems. Earlier studies have drawn attention to the importance of appropriate mental health services, individualized assessment, and continuity of treatment in institutional settings (Fazel et al., 2016). From this perspective, the experiences reported by participants in the present study reflect a broader concern found in the literature: public safety and rehabilitation should not necessarily be understood as competing objectives.
Finally, the findings indicate that reducing stigma requires change not only at the institutional level but also within the broader social environment. Persons with mental disorders who have committed criminal offenses should not be perceived exclusively through their diagnosis or criminal history. The experiences reported by the participants suggest that an approach based on individual assessment, professional treatment, rehabilitation, and continued support offers a more appropriate basis for balancing the rights and needs of the individual with the legitimate interest of protecting public safety.
CONCLUSION
The stigmatization of individuals with mental disorders who have committed criminal offenses remains one of the most important challenges in the intersection between the criminal justice system, the healthcare system, and the protection of human rights. This study aimed to analyze how the stigmatization of people with mental disorders who have committed criminal offenses is perceived and addressed, relying on the experiences and assessments of professionals working in various fields related to criminal justice, mental health, and social services.
One of the main findings of the study is that there is still a tendency to link mental disorders with risk and criminal behavior. Although scientific literature opposes such a direct connection, these perceptions continue to influence how this category of people is viewed by the community and, in certain cases, by institutions as well. As a result, persons with mental disorders who have committed criminal offenses face a double form of stigmatization, where diagnosis and criminal history intertwine and affect their social identity.
The results also show that effective treatment for this category cannot rely solely on legal measures or clinical interventions. Rehabilitation and reintegration require continuous cooperation between justice institutions, mental health services, social services, and the community. When this cooperation is lacking or insufficient, the risk increases that persons with mental disorders will remain excluded even after the completion of treatment or criminal proceedings.
The study also highlighted that the legal framework of the Republic of Kosovo provides the basis for protecting the rights of persons with mental disorders and for their treatment in accordance with international standards. However, the practical implementation of these standards requires continuous improvement. For this reason, strengthening inter-institutional coordination, expanding rehabilitation programs, developing community services, and providing support after the completion of institutional measures remain among the main priorities.
This research also presents some limitations. The study was conducted with a limited number of participants and was based on the perceptions of professionals, without directly including the experiences of people with mental disorders who have committed criminal offenses or their family members. For this reason, future studies can expand the analysis to include these perspectives, as well as by combining qualitative and quantitative approaches to provide a more comprehensive picture of the phenomenon.
Several additional limitations should also be considered. The use of purposive sampling and the recruitment of participants through their professional institutions may have introduced a degree of selection bias, as professionals who agreed to participate may have differed in their experiences or perspectives from those who did not participate. In addition, the professional groups were not equally represented in the sample, which may have given greater weight to the perspectives of some groups than others.
As the study relied on participants' accounts of their professional experiences and perceptions, the possibility of social desirability bias cannot be excluded, particularly in relation to sensitive issues concerning professional practice and institutional responses. Finally, the context-specific nature of the study limits the transferability of the findings beyond the institutions, professional groups, and participants included in the research. The findings should therefore be interpreted within the specific context of this study rather than assumed to represent professional or institutional experiences more broadly.
In conclusion, it can be said that reducing the stigma against people with mental disorders who have committed criminal offenses is not only the responsibility of the criminal justice system or health institutions. It requires the commitment of all public institutions, professionals, and society as a whole. Only an approach based on respect for human dignity, individual assessment of each case, professional treatment, and inter-institutional cooperation can create conditions for these individuals to be rehabilitated, reintegrated, and exercise their rights equally with other citizens.