Christopher Zoukis's Blog - Posts Tagged "mental-illness"
Mental illness and slow death by solitary confinement
On June 7th, the American prison system took another life. Kalief Browder had not been confined behind the walls of a prison for several months, but the system remains largely responsible for his death nonetheless. On that Saturday afternoon, Kalief’s mother made the discovery that no parent should have to endure: he had hanged himself outside the family home. It would be easy to write this story off as being just one of a “troubled youth,” but it would be a tremendous disservice to his memory were we not to make clear that our entire judicial system set the stage for this tragedy.
Browder was a child of just 16 when he was arrested for robbery and imprisoned at the notoriously violent RNDC at Rikers prison. There he languished for nearly three years, waiting for a trial that never took place. But worse than that, the bulk of his time there was spent in solitary confinement; the practice of confinement for minor issues (or for no reason at all) is a practice that in recent years has been growing in popularity across New York’s jails. The moratorium on isolation for those under 21 years of age came too late for Kalief. There he endured abuse at the hands of prison staff, the withholding of food, and the mental ravages that come with complete isolation from the world. Ultimately, he attempted suicide. The response of the facility speaks to the heart of the problem: he was sent to the prison clinic, then returned to solitary without being provided with treatment for serious mental health concerns. His case was later dismissed, but the damage had been done.
Bowder had done much to better himself both prior to and after his release, to put the past behind him, but experiences like his are not easily swept under the rug. He was released from prison a changed man, and he attempted suicide multiple times; his mental health remained fragile up to his death this week.
A full account of Browder’s ordeals can be read here. New Yorker writer Jennifer Gonnerman became close with Browder, documenting the abuses mete upon him by prison staff and remaining close with him upon his release. He became a cause celèbre for many, and it seemed to all intents and purposes that his life was on the right track. But what is difficult to convey is the emotional toll that solitary confinement takes on a human being. It’s an experience I wish I could say I couldn’t empathize with, but I have been twice confined to solitary for my writing. Nothing can prepare you for that kind of isolation and the desperation it engenders in even the most stable mind. For those with existing mental health issues, confinement can literally be deadly.
or three years, a teenager’s medical needs were neglected and he was tortured by a system entrusted with his care—and it’s a problem that is endemic to the system. The mentally ill are disproportionately represented amongst the incarcerated; each year, 2 million men and women with mental illnesses are jailed, accounting for nearly two-thirds of women and half of men incarcerated. In its current state, the American prison system is incapable of adequately meeting the mental health needs of its inmates.
The system is that is charged with the treatment and housing of the mentally ill, is one that is barely capable of addressing even the most basic of medical issues facing prisoners. And our penchant for simply throwing more and more people into our prisons is only exacerbating the problem. They are not referred to community-based organizations which may assist them, or treatment facilities that can provide critical medications—they are shuffled away into our already over-stuffed prisons and jails.
The Stepping Up Initiative is currently engaged in the issue and seeking to develop new approaches to keeping the mentally ill out of the prison system, and helping to break the cycle of those who are already in it. I encourage you to take a moment both to read Kalief’s story, and to see how you can help change a broken a system that is killing our young men and women.
Browder was a child of just 16 when he was arrested for robbery and imprisoned at the notoriously violent RNDC at Rikers prison. There he languished for nearly three years, waiting for a trial that never took place. But worse than that, the bulk of his time there was spent in solitary confinement; the practice of confinement for minor issues (or for no reason at all) is a practice that in recent years has been growing in popularity across New York’s jails. The moratorium on isolation for those under 21 years of age came too late for Kalief. There he endured abuse at the hands of prison staff, the withholding of food, and the mental ravages that come with complete isolation from the world. Ultimately, he attempted suicide. The response of the facility speaks to the heart of the problem: he was sent to the prison clinic, then returned to solitary without being provided with treatment for serious mental health concerns. His case was later dismissed, but the damage had been done.
Bowder had done much to better himself both prior to and after his release, to put the past behind him, but experiences like his are not easily swept under the rug. He was released from prison a changed man, and he attempted suicide multiple times; his mental health remained fragile up to his death this week.
A full account of Browder’s ordeals can be read here. New Yorker writer Jennifer Gonnerman became close with Browder, documenting the abuses mete upon him by prison staff and remaining close with him upon his release. He became a cause celèbre for many, and it seemed to all intents and purposes that his life was on the right track. But what is difficult to convey is the emotional toll that solitary confinement takes on a human being. It’s an experience I wish I could say I couldn’t empathize with, but I have been twice confined to solitary for my writing. Nothing can prepare you for that kind of isolation and the desperation it engenders in even the most stable mind. For those with existing mental health issues, confinement can literally be deadly.
or three years, a teenager’s medical needs were neglected and he was tortured by a system entrusted with his care—and it’s a problem that is endemic to the system. The mentally ill are disproportionately represented amongst the incarcerated; each year, 2 million men and women with mental illnesses are jailed, accounting for nearly two-thirds of women and half of men incarcerated. In its current state, the American prison system is incapable of adequately meeting the mental health needs of its inmates.
The system is that is charged with the treatment and housing of the mentally ill, is one that is barely capable of addressing even the most basic of medical issues facing prisoners. And our penchant for simply throwing more and more people into our prisons is only exacerbating the problem. They are not referred to community-based organizations which may assist them, or treatment facilities that can provide critical medications—they are shuffled away into our already over-stuffed prisons and jails.
The Stepping Up Initiative is currently engaged in the issue and seeking to develop new approaches to keeping the mentally ill out of the prison system, and helping to break the cycle of those who are already in it. I encourage you to take a moment both to read Kalief’s story, and to see how you can help change a broken a system that is killing our young men and women.
Is a Defendant Claiming Mental Illness Entitled to an Expert Witness?
The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard a case (McWilliams v. Dunn) raising the issue of whether an indigent criminal defendant claiming mental illness is entitled to get an independent expert witness to assist the defense.
Over three decades ago, in December 1984, Patricia Reynolds, a convenience store clerk in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, was robbed, raped and murdered. Brought to trial for the crimes, James McWilliams, at his lawyer’s request, received a court-ordered psychiatric assessment, to examine his sanity, competency and any mitigating factors.
The testing was overseen by the state Department of Corrections, and a panel of three state-employed doctors reported McWilliams was competent to face trial, was not mentally ill at the time of the crimes, and was faking psychotic symptoms.
After McWilliams was found guilty, at the trial’s penalty phase prosecutors offered as expert witnesses two of the state doctors who had examined McWilliams and found him to be sane but feigning psychosis. The only witnesses for the defense were McWilliams and his mother, who spoke about childhood head injuries that they thought were linked to his various disorders, including chronic headaches, black-outs, hallucinations and memory problems.
The court also admitted a clinical psychologist’s report into evidence, which was done a few months before the crime spree, detailing psychiatric test results and concluding McWilliams probably had serious pathology. That psychologist did not appear when subpoenaed, however, and defense witnesses were unable to explain or discuss the report’s technical features. The jury called for the death penalty.
Before the sentencing hearing, McWilliams’ lawyer asked for more neurological and psychiatric testing; the court again ordered the state corrections department to oversee that. The psychologist in charge said organic impairment was possible, and suggested the court order further testing by a clinical neuropsychological specialist not employed by the state.
The court then named a specialist, who submitted a five-page report just two days before the sentencing hearing. McWilliams’ defense counsel didn’t receive all his client’s medical and psychiatric records from the state corrections system until the morning of that hearing.
Rejecting counsel’s request for more time to review the material, the court determined McWilliams was not psychotic, and any brain dysfunction he might have did not reach the level of a mitigating factor. In view of aggravating factors— a previous rape-robbery conviction, the brutal attack and execution-style shooting of Reynolds, and evidence McWilliams was malingering — the judge sentenced him to death by electrocution.
McWilliams’ lawyer next went to federal court, attacking the state's not providing an independent expert witness to review and explain the technical issues in a mental illness defense; he lost in federal district court and a split appellate panel.
To win, McWilliams must show not only that he needed an independent expert advisor-witness, but also that the state’s failure to provide one violated a clearly established constitutional requirement. The closest Supreme Court decision, a 1986 case finding Oklahoma wrongly withheld all psychiatric review from an indigent defendant whose mental health was a central issue, didn’t decide whether an independent expert was required, or it might be sufficient if the defendant were reviewed by state mental health experts, as McWilliams was.
At the April 24 hearing, however, some observers thought that swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy may side with the court’s four liberal justices, and hand McWilliams a new review of his sentence.
Over three decades ago, in December 1984, Patricia Reynolds, a convenience store clerk in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, was robbed, raped and murdered. Brought to trial for the crimes, James McWilliams, at his lawyer’s request, received a court-ordered psychiatric assessment, to examine his sanity, competency and any mitigating factors.
The testing was overseen by the state Department of Corrections, and a panel of three state-employed doctors reported McWilliams was competent to face trial, was not mentally ill at the time of the crimes, and was faking psychotic symptoms.
After McWilliams was found guilty, at the trial’s penalty phase prosecutors offered as expert witnesses two of the state doctors who had examined McWilliams and found him to be sane but feigning psychosis. The only witnesses for the defense were McWilliams and his mother, who spoke about childhood head injuries that they thought were linked to his various disorders, including chronic headaches, black-outs, hallucinations and memory problems.
The court also admitted a clinical psychologist’s report into evidence, which was done a few months before the crime spree, detailing psychiatric test results and concluding McWilliams probably had serious pathology. That psychologist did not appear when subpoenaed, however, and defense witnesses were unable to explain or discuss the report’s technical features. The jury called for the death penalty.
Before the sentencing hearing, McWilliams’ lawyer asked for more neurological and psychiatric testing; the court again ordered the state corrections department to oversee that. The psychologist in charge said organic impairment was possible, and suggested the court order further testing by a clinical neuropsychological specialist not employed by the state.
The court then named a specialist, who submitted a five-page report just two days before the sentencing hearing. McWilliams’ defense counsel didn’t receive all his client’s medical and psychiatric records from the state corrections system until the morning of that hearing.
Rejecting counsel’s request for more time to review the material, the court determined McWilliams was not psychotic, and any brain dysfunction he might have did not reach the level of a mitigating factor. In view of aggravating factors— a previous rape-robbery conviction, the brutal attack and execution-style shooting of Reynolds, and evidence McWilliams was malingering — the judge sentenced him to death by electrocution.
McWilliams’ lawyer next went to federal court, attacking the state's not providing an independent expert witness to review and explain the technical issues in a mental illness defense; he lost in federal district court and a split appellate panel.
To win, McWilliams must show not only that he needed an independent expert advisor-witness, but also that the state’s failure to provide one violated a clearly established constitutional requirement. The closest Supreme Court decision, a 1986 case finding Oklahoma wrongly withheld all psychiatric review from an indigent defendant whose mental health was a central issue, didn’t decide whether an independent expert was required, or it might be sufficient if the defendant were reviewed by state mental health experts, as McWilliams was.
At the April 24 hearing, however, some observers thought that swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy may side with the court’s four liberal justices, and hand McWilliams a new review of his sentence.
