Early Release of Mentally Ill Inmates Who are Charged with Sex Crimes - Research Paper Example

? Early Release of Mentally Ill Inmates Who are Charged with Sex Crimes Early Release of Mentally Ill Inmates Who are Charged with Sex Crimes Abstract It is seen that due to financial crisis and uncontrolled overcrowding in prisons, authorities are left with no option other than releasing some offenders before the completion of their jail term. According to claims, only those offenders who are not dangerous to the society are released. However, since mentally ill offenders are categorized as ‘level one’ offenders, such offenders get the eligibility to be released early. Admittedly, the rising number of mentally ill offenders in society and in correction centers is a matter of serious concern as keeping them involves huge expenditure and due to unpredictable nature of their crimes. Early release of the mentally ill sex offenders is a matter of dispute as there is no conclusive study which analyses the way such mentally ill offenders cope with the community in the long term. However, a look into the various scholarly works shows that mentally ill offenders are highly likely to recommit the crimes due to various reasons, ranging from little or no social support, lack of medical and financial support, and poor monitoring. This work suggests some ways to overcome these problems to reduce the risk without an increased financial burden on the authorities. Early release of mentally ill sex offenders According to estimates (as cited in Rich, 2009), nearly 283,800 mentally ill offenders are held in the prisons in the nation and nearly 547,800 are on probation in the community. Admittedly, the increasing number of mentally ill inmates in the federal and states jails has become a matter of increasing concern for the authorities due to the decreased budget and the consequent financial crisis. However, the early release program introduced by the authorities to reduce prison population has caused a very serious problem for the people due to various reasons. In this program, low-risk prisoners are allowed to leave jails before the completion of their jail terms. As most of the crimes committed by mentally ill people are categorized as ‘category one’, mentally ill persons easily manage to get early release. A report dated 1 April 2010 by Cervantes and Wilkens (2010) points out that like many other states, in California too, more mentally ill offenders are released instead of getting referred to mental health care; and from the data provided, it is clear that between 2005 and 2009, the number of sex offenders who are referred to the Department of Mental Health by the Department of Corrections as potentially dangerous to be released to society has increased from 524 per year to 6705. Out of them, as Cervantes and Wilkens (2010) note, the number of mental health cases increased from 238 to 1126; however, it is surprising to note that the percentage of the referrals accepted by the Department of Mental Health fell from 45% to 17% in the same period. A perfect example of what happens in such cases is the case of Chelsea King, a teenager from Poway. In fact, the release of her killer John Albert Gardner had been twice rejected by the prison officials but the Department of Mental Health released him, resulting in the death. A look into the characteristics of mentally ill offenders, recidivism rates, and revolving door phenomenon will prove that early release of mentally ill offenders has a very serious impact on social safety. A look into the details According to The Sentencing Project (2002) report, nearly 40% of all the mentally ill offenders are homeless and an equal percentage is binge drinkers; and moreover, they are two times more likely to be homeless compared to the general population. Another important study by the Treatment Advocacy Center (1999) (as cited in The Sentencing Project 2002), points out that mentally ill population is the reason behind a considerable proportion of violence in society, and the reason lies in their inability to understand their inabilities and the consequence of the same on the society. It is pointed out in the study that most of the mentally ill offenders lack employment, housing and money to support their lives. In the opinion of Udesky (2005), criminalizing mental illness is the basic reason behind the present day issues faced by American correctional facilities. The scholar points out that as mental illness is criminalized, there is an increase in the number of mentally ill people landing in jails instead of hospitals. According to Udesky (2005), the problem that the authorities fail to understand is that the mentally disordered people require more prison resources than the normal prisoners. As already observed, the mentally ill offenders do not have resources to sustain themselves ones they are sent back to the society. In addition, they are unable to understand the consequences of their own actions. Probably as a result of these, there is the ‘revolving door phenomenon. In the words of Baillargeon, Binswanger, Penn, Williams and Murray (2009), there is a constant flow of mentally ill offenders in and out of prisons because it is observed that the mentally ill offenders, especially the ones with bipolar disorders, schizophrenia, non-schizophrenic psychotic disorders and major depression are more likely to restart their criminal behavior ones they are back in the community. Broner, Borum and Gawley (2002) studied the trends in reconviction among the mentally ill offenders post-release, and found that there is higher chance of reconviction within the first forty months of release from jail. The study by Broner et al (2002) and various other studies have observed that even less than half of the mentally ill offenders get any form of community-based mental health services or other monetary assistance post-release. Also, there is a surprising fact that despite this large number of mentally ill people released from prisons, little is studied about how they adjust in the society (Broner, et al 2002). In the opinion of Broner et al (2002), following their reentry into the community, mentally ill offenders are highly likely to face difficulties getting used to the society. As a result, they end up in re-hospitalization or re-incarceration. In a study among 546 inmates, it was found that nearly 20 percent of the released mentally ill offenders were civilly admitted to any psychiatric center. Even after eighteen months of additional hospitalization, they had a 24% less chance of receiving support from the community; and most importantly, more than half of them were arrested at least once after their release Broner et al (2002). As a result of this reduced support from community and reduced assistance from government, the mentally ill people are highly likely to give up their medication. Thus they end up recommitting crimes and reach the prisons back. There is the surprising revelation from Torrey, Kennard, Eslinger, Lamb and Pavle (2010) that ninety percent of the mentally ill offenders in the Los Angeles County jail are repeat offenders or ‘frequent flyers’. Out of them, nearly a third has at least ten times of incarceration. In the opinion of Rich (2009), the mentally ill offenders face stress when they come out of the prison environment. This triggers anger and compulsive behavior in them. The risk is doubled when the mentally ill offenders are addicted to substance abuse. Thus, as Baillargeon et al (2009) point out, the mentally ill offenders are highly likely to revisit correction systems and the underlying reason is their untreated mental illness and the complementary substance abuse. As Udesky (2005) points out, the reason behind the decreased support and treatment programs post release is not lack of knowledge, but deficiency of financial resources as is the case California. It is observed by Baillargeon et al (2009) that if treatment programs are offered post release, the chances of recommitting crimes in mentally ill offenders are just equal to that of the general inmate population. That means setting mentally ill offenders free has a very serious impact on society, especially when there is no social, financial or medical support. One can see umpteen examples of the dangers involved in classifying mentally ill offenders as ‘level one’ enabling them to get early release. As CDCR admits, it has released nearly 656 inmates who could be a threat to public safety. A perfect example is provided by Blankstein (2010) in which a 34 year old early release broke into a home and brutally murdered a woman. In the article named ‘Once a sex offender, always a sex offender? May be not’, by Arkowitz and Lilienfeld (2008), it is pointed out that the possibility of recidivism, that is recommitting the same crime, is 36 percent in the first five years, and in fifteen years, it is 13% for incest perpetrators, 24% for rapists, and 35% for child molesters. As Baillargeon et al (2009) point out, one problem with the early release is that due to the decreased funding, it is not possible to offer facilities like housing and employment to all the mentally ill offenders who are released. In addition, this results in decreased mental health screening, medication, treatment, and other pre-release programs. As a result, the released ones fail to get any post-release support. This results in their return to transient tendencies and criminal activities. It is argued by Broner et al (2002) that there is the issue of re-admittance which makes early release very similar to deinstitutionalization. In the case of deinstitutionalization, it was not possible for a patient to get re-admitted to a hospital on request. In order to get admitted, the patient had to present themselves as a threat. In the very same way, in this new early release program, a mentally ill person cannot be re-arrested for parole violations. In addition, there is no parole officer to observe the activities of the offender. Thus, a sexual offender is given a free chance to commit the crime again, and this time, there are various additional factors like frustration and anger to worsen the situation. Another important issue, according to Udesky (2005) is ‘falling between cracks’. In other words, there is total lack of follow-up and aftercare, as was the case with deinstitutionalization. In the case of early release, authorities have failed to plan any programs to help the offenders to assimilate into the community. Thus, the offenders remain in the society as a threat and it becomes a burden on the local community to see that such people are properly taken care of. In the case of early release, another problem is the revolving door. As Baillargeon et al (2009) point out, it is seen that the mentally ill offenders who come out of jails without proper community reentry training show a high degree of recidivism and reach prisons back. Otherwise, they are caught by the correction for parole violations. Ways to come out of the problem The first point in improving this pathetic situation is proper pre-release planning. As already seen, in order to send mentally ill sex offenders into the society without posing a serious threat to the society, there are various factors to be taken into account. First of all, local authorities, health officials, family and friends of the criminal if any, mental health department, and the prison officials should come together in the pre-release planning stage. After proper analysis, the ones who are found fit to be released be given rigorous re-entry planning. Secondly, there should be community-based case managers who will oversee the performance of each early released mentally ill offender from time to time. They should monitor everything about the transition, ranging from treatment programs, medication, financial help, and other welfare services. This should be made mandatory in the case of every released mentally ill sex offender. However, as already discussed, the underlying problem is the criminalization of mental illness. If mental illness is considered different from crime, there are various benefits. First of all, this will help reduce overcrowding in jails. As already seen, keeping mentally ill inmates requires a lot more resources. If they are sent for treatment, this situation can be avoided from the very beginning. Secondly, this will ensure that the mentally ill offender is getting proper treatment instead of confinement which serves no apparent benefit. Thus, the possibility of the offender getting prepared to go back to the community increases considerably. Furthermore, this will reduce the need for a complicated system of having mental health professionals in jails. Furthermore this will help reduce the conflict between mental health department and the prison officials due to the differences in their focus. Anyway, if an offender is freed into the society, it is highly necessary to have a web of people monitoring the person. First of all, there should be an online profile of the offender managed by the mental health department, the case manager observing the person, his family members if any, and the prison officials. All the details regarding the assimilation of the criminal into the society including housing, finance, medication, and other support should be properly recorded. The correctional system and the mental health department should monitor the success of this system for a period. In the case of those who already have records of many jail visits, this strategy should not be adopted. Instead, they should be given treatment instead of imprisonment so that they can be cured on the one hand, and overcrowding and increased expenditure can be cut on the other. It is evident that even if they are released immediately to reduce expenses and increases space, they are highly likely to come back in a short while. On the other hand, if they are offered proper treatment, the possibility of coming back to jails is considerably reduced. In addition, this will reduce the chances of innocent people being victimized. References Arkowitz, H & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2008). Once a sex offender, always a sex offender? May be not’. Scientific American, April 3. Blankstein, A. (2010). Valley village slaying suspect captured in Mexico. Los Angeles Times, Oct 12. Baillargeon, J. Binswanger, I.A, Penn, J.V, Williams, B.A & Murray, O.J. (2009). Psychiatric disorders and repeat incarcerations: The revolving prison door. American Journal of Psychiatry, 166 (1): 103-109. Broner, N, Borum, R, and Gawley, K. (2002). “Criminal justice diversion of individuals with co-occurring mental illness and substances use disorders: an overview”. In G. Landsberg, M. Rock, L. K.W. Berg & A. Smiley (Eds.). Serving mentally ill offenders: challenges and opportunities for mental health professionals. New York: Springer Publishing Co. Cervantes, D & Wilkens, J. (2010). More mentally ill sex offenders freed on parole.Crime Victims Action Alliance News. Retrieved from http://cvaanews.wordpress.com/2010/04/01/more-mentally-ill-sex-offenders-freed-on-parole/ Rich, W.J. (2009). The path of mentally ill offenders. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 36: 89-113. The Sentencing Project (2002). Mentally ill offenders in the criminal justice system: an analysis and prescription.1-19. Retrieved from http://www.sentencingproject.org/detail/publication.cfm?publication_id=92 Torrey, E. F., Kennard, S. A. D., Eslinger, S. D., Lamb, R & Pavle, J. (2010). More Mentally Ill Persons Are in Jails and Prisons Than Hospitals: A Survey of the States. Treatment Advocacy Center, National Sheriff’s Association. Retrieved from www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/ Udesky, L. (2005). Court takes over California’s prison health system. The Lancet, 366 (9488): 796-797. Read More