Yolo County gears up for a death penalty case, in the case of Marco Topete, accused of shooting and killing Yolo County Sheriff’s Deputy Tony Diaz back in 2008. Like many in this county who have suffered from violent crimes, the family of Deputy Diaz has been brought into court to watch the proceedings with help from victims’ advocates, generally funded through grants in the DA’s Office.
In our view, we commiserate with their likely unbearable pain that they have had to suffer for all too long, and hope that this trial can provide them with both the closure and solace that they need.
That was a problematic case to begin with, and I think any honest assessment by the DA’s Office would have shown first that Mr. Solis did not kill the victim in that case, and second, that even on the off-chance that he had, there is no way they would have ever been to prove it.
And yet, there were thedeputy DA’s and the victims’ advocates parading ten members of the victim’s family around the courthouse with a Spanish Language interpreter. They got to watch in anguish as the DA’s case fell apart, the jury hung, and the DA decided not to retry after key witnesses ended up in Mexico.
So a murder in Yolo County is unsolved and no one seems to give a damn. No one in the press other than the Vanguard has covered this case. And the DA’s Office seems unsympathetic to the fact now that these ten family members, whom they seemed to care so much about during the trial, now have this entire crime that has no closure.
We believe that the actual killers were two that were already in Mexico and we fail to understand why the DA’s Office would not have had US authorities work to bring them back this country to make that determination. Instead, the DA stuck to the easier target, Jesus Solis, who was available for arrest but probably did not perpetrate the crime.
The media has made a big deal this week about another murder at La Finca in Woodland. Last December however, we covered the Jose Valenzuela case which involved a double stabbing at La Finca where the victim thankfully did not die.
After a bungled investigation by the Woodland Police Department, they arrested Jose Valenzuela. The jury acquitted him of the attempted murder of a second individual and hung 11-1 in his favor for the attempted murder of the other individual.
In the case it did not make much sense that he stabbed one but not the other. And in fact, most of the jurors do not think he stabbed either individual. But instead of trying to find out who did and catch that person, they are going to retry Mr. Valenzuela, perhaps hoping that because his family ran out of money and he now has to rely on public defense, that they will prevail.
Back to Topete in a moment here. There was an interesting piece in the “Second Class Justice” blog in LA County, prioritizing executions over victims.
James Clark notes that while prosecutors claim they seek “the death penalty because it provides victims’ family members with closure,” a growing number of “victims and victims’ advocates have questioned the myth of ‘closure.’ “
Indeed, there has not been a psychological study that concluded that the death penalty brings closure to the family of victims, and there is even growing evidence that it can prolong the suffering of grieving families.
Writes James Clark, “A growing number of victims’ advocacy organizations are taking a stand against the death penalty because it prioritizes executions above the real needs of victims. Groups like Murder Victims’ Families for Reconciliation, Murder Victims’ Families for Human Rights, and California Crime Victims for Alternatives to the Death Penalty have shown how the needs of victims are often shunted aside in favor of the politics of executions.”
The article references a January article from the Los Angeles Times that we discussed a few months back. It references an LA County case where the defendant, Manling Williams, was convicted of murdering her husband and two sons. Following the conviction however, the jury deadlocked on whether to execute the defendant.
Again, the prosecutor in this case, LA District Attorney Steve Cooley, had discretion as to whether to accept life without parole, or seek the death penalty.
The mother and grandmother of the victims, Jan Williams, sent a letter to the DA asking them to not seek the death penalty and accept life without parole. But the DA declined.
“You feel like you don’t matter to either side, like it’s just a chess game between them,” Jan Williams told the LA Times. “It’s crazy at this point to go through it all again. What is it for? What does it bring to us?”
There are several consequences for this. First, the victim will have to endure another penalty phase, and that is probably one of the worst things you could ever do to the family of victims of crime.
They estimate that penalty phase will incur huge costs to LA County during a time of budget problems. They estimate roughly a million dollars because they will have to impanel a new jury, and investigators, prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges will have to re-enact the hearing.
Moreover, like the Topete case, it is unlikely the person found responsible will actually be put to death.
Writes Mr. Clark, “the legal ordeal experienced by Jan Williams could potentially last a lifetime – 25 years, on average. That time will be spent in more traumatic hearings, appeals proceedings and clemency requests, and it will cost the state and county millions more taxpayer dollars.”
He continues, “At the end of those 25 years of traumatic and expensive hearings, it’s possible that Manling Williams will be executed as promised by prosecutors after decades go by and millions of dollars are spent. Then again, that execution will probably never happen, massive waste notwithstanding, because the majority of California death row inmates die of natural causes or suicide long before they reach the execution chamber.”
This is exactly what we face here in Yolo County and what the Diaz family will have to endure This is victim advocacy? There is not going to be closure here. Have you ever seen what happens in a lot of these executions? They set a date and then there are delays.
Sometimes these guys are spared at the last instant, almost. I can only imagine what it must be like to believe you are about to be executed and then five minutes away, they spare you, temporarily.
Maybe you have no sympathy for someone convicted of killing another human being, but imagine what it must be like for the families. And yet, we almost have to do it that way because often enough these guys are actually innocent of the crime they are to be executed for.
I do not see anything here that really supports the victims in this system. I agree with the mother/grandmother, they are just being caught up in a chess game, where they are used as pawns for the prosecution to look like they are tough on crime and sensitive to the needs of victims.
Mr. Clark’s article cites Aqeela Sherrills, the Southern California Coordinator of California Crime Victims for Alternatives to the Death Penalty (CCV), who said, “ ‘It speaks volumes about our broken death penalty system when prosecutors seek the death penalty against the expressed desires of the victims’ family. It sounds more like a career move for the prosecutor, and capitalizing on the suffering of the victims at the expense of tax payers.’ ”
Mr. Clark continues, “Like other supporters of CCV, Mr. Sherrills opposes the death penalty even after losing a family member to violence. He spoke with me about the stark difference in priorities between law enforcement and his family in the wake of his son’s murder: ‘When my son was murdered in January 2004, I expressed the need for more programs and services to help kids like the one who killed my son. The detective looked at me with bewilderment and said, “I can’t believe you have compassion for these monsters!” It’s been seven years since my son was murdered and his case remains unsolved.’ “
“Cases like Mr. Sherrills’ are common. While resources are funneled into death penalty prosecutions, thousands of cold cases remain unsolved because of a lack of funds for investigations and law enforcement,” Mr. Clark continues.
We have cited but two such examples in our brief time of covering the Yolo County courts. In the case of Topete, we won’t have the problem. However, while Mr. Topete’s trial and penalty phase may end in the next four months or so, even if convicted and sentenced to be executed, the chances that he ever will are very slim.
Are there not better, and cheaper, ways to do this?
—David M. Greenwald reporting
There you go again David, trying to think about the victims, the broken process and the waste of tax dollars. Keep your eye on the ball.
This is about headlines, high crimes stats, grant monies and doing tricks to confuse the voting public that the DA cares. Those that just blindly read the local papers, that simply print the DA’s propaganda, think he is so caring and doing a good tough job. Those with a critical thinking mind would have to question what kind of person would capitalize, prey and take advantage of a victim’s loss.
And people wonder why lawyers are commonly referred to as sharks, feeding on the helpless, bloodsuckers and other color metaphors.
Reminds me of a saying “how does a stereotype come to be, perhaps because it is mostly true”
The legislators and voters have the option to end the death penalty as a sentencing option right now…
Agreement all the way around on this one.
EMR – agreed that the legislators and voters have the option to end the death penalty as a sentencing
option
RR – agreed that prosecutors have the ability to not ask for the death penalty
Since both points are valid, where is the controversy ?
MED: [i]”agreed that [b]the legislators[/b] and voters have the option to end the death penalty as a sentencing option”[/i]
I don’t know if this is correct. I think ending the death penalty would have to be done by an initiative, because the state law in effect was the result of Proposition 7 of 1978. (I looked for the exact language of that prop on-line, but could not find it.)
Good point Rifkin. I was just trusting Elaine on this one. Maybe she can clarify ?
Rich is correct about the initiative process. My source is the talk given by Ellen Eggers (Deputy State Public Defender, who represents death row inmates in their automatic appeal) on 2/27 at the Blanchard Room. Ms. Eggers is in favor of abolishing the death penalty, for a number of reasons. That cannot be accomplished by the legislature.
As to whether we should get rid of the death penalty, I am of mixed mind. I believe death is the only appropriate punishment for murderers and for those whose intention was to murder but failed. I also believe that if it is carried out swiftly and consistently it will have a deterrent effect.
However, the reality is that none of the benefits from the death penalty, in California, are being produced. The executions are not swift. It takes 30 years and more to execute someone. And that completely takes away the deterent effect. The imposition of the penalty on murderers and failed killers is anything but consistent. We have hundreds of convicted murderers for every one who is sentenced to death. Very often those who don’t get the death penalty are every bit as heinous as those who do. Because it takes so many years, with such an expensive legal process of appeals, it costs far more to sentence someone to death than to life without parole.
While my first choice would be to try to reform our capital punishment system so that it functions to the benefit of our state, [b]I would prefer abolishing it altogether in place of what we have now[/b].
Yet to those outspoken opponents of the death penalty who blithely call for life without parole for these heinous murders, I have [s]two[/s] [s]three[/s] [b]four[/b] thoughts:
1. Locking some 20-year-old murderer in a cage for 65 years is to me a truly cruel and soul-crushing punishment. Death is swift. What you advocate is slow and barbaric, regardless of what your church is telling you is moral;
2. If you integrate murderers in the general prison population, especially those who are sociopaths who care not a whit about any other human life, you are probably sentencing some percentage of robbers, drug pushers and less dangerous nogoodniks to death, as these locked up killers will at some point want to kill again;
3. If saving money is the motivation for life without parole in place of the death penalty, then at least consider the notion of sending these guys to some poor country–say India or Brazil–where they can be locked in a cage for 65 years for a lot less money than we will pay here in California; and
4. If we go strictly to life without parole in place of death, I suspect the appeals process for the wrongly convicted will be weakened. I don’t know that is true, but logic suggests lawyers hired to stop an execution will fight harder and longer than ones hired to simply release a convict doing time. So if that is the case, then this switch will probably increase the amount of injustice, keeping more people who were wrongly convicted locked up much longer.
First to highbeam: thanks for the clarification.
Regarding the four points of Rifkin
1) I am in favor of life without parole, but am not blithe in my thought process. I agree that for many it would be torture. For others,say the innocent, it might offer ongoing hope of regaining their freedom. For others it might be a chance for personal redemption. And I would add another suggestion which I am sure will draw some fire. Why not provide each with the knowledge and means to commit suicide if they do find their situation intolerable thus saving the taxpayers the need to keep funding the slow and barbaric treatment.
2)I would not recommend reintegrating them, thus avoiding this issue altogether
3)I don’t believe in outsourcing our “torture” and again would allow the convict to choose whether or not to end his life
4) not being well acquainted with either the judicial or penal system I don’t know whether what you say about lawyers motivation to fight longer and harder if a life is at stake is true. I suspect it would be highly variable based on the individual.,
First the disclaimer: I work for the Dept. of Corrections, am a mental health professional, and have worked with a number of people convicted of murder over the years. So, that being said, here is a couple of thoughts about what has been written so far:
1. We have many inmates who have been convicted of murder – remember that we have a variety of laws for when someone is killed wrongfully – from manslaughter up to murder first degree and murder second. We only sentence people to death for murder one, and only if they qualify for special circumstances – I don’t remember how many there are but they run the gammut from killing a peace officer in the line duty, to multiple deaths, murder with sexual components, etc.
2. Most inmates convicted of murder are convicted of second degree murder – and are committed for indeterminate sentences – 7 to life, 15 to life, and the like. Some of them get out eventually when the Board of Parole Hearings (with the Gov’s concurrance) finds them “suitable” for parole. They stay on parole supervision for life. There are 712 condemned inmates at San QUentin and one of the women’s prisons – there are thousands of other inmates who have been convicted of murder.
3. Rifkin mentions the possible risk of integrating convicted murderers into the general population. I assume he meant condemned inmates rather than others. (There are thousands of “murderers” already integrated into the Department’s general population prisons.) There has been research on violence in prison by condemned inmates by a guy named Cunningham in Texas (he had large samples, as you can imagine). He found violent incidents by condemned inmates to be no more prevalent than other inmates convicted of violent crimes. Essentially, if you look at the numbers, it’s a myth that they are more dangerous when around others. Missouri went so far as to re-integrate condemned inmates into a high security general population setting and even let them go to work. It produced no be problems. The rate of murder in prison is less than on the street. The rate of murder among condemned inmates is even lower. Rates of criminal reoffending of all kinds drops significantly as individuals age. We keep people in prison long enough that their risk of reoffending is very small. If you want to know some information about our condemned inmates the department has a website:
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Capital_Punishment/index.html
4. Opinion alert: Selectively sequestering condemned inmates (with the usual exceptions for some strange and psychopathic individuals) costs too much money and does nothing to improve security at San Quentin. These 700+ inmates are treated like we treat other segregated prisoners. They also have a high prevalence of serious mental disorders and FYI, more condemned inmates have died by suicide than have been executed in the last twenty years. Six in the last five years alone. The costs of the appeals process is appalling and Rich is correct, it can drag on for years. The taxpayers are not getting good benefit from the way the death penalty is administered in this state. For a good book on capitol punishment in America’st see The Contradictions of American Capital Punishment by Franklin Zimring, who teaches at Cal.
MED: [i]”Why not provide each with the knowledge and means to commit suicide if they do find their situation intolerable thus saving the taxpayers the need to keep funding the slow and barbaric treatment.”[/i]
I used to fancy this idea. Just place a hangman’s noose in each cell and see what happens. The problem, alas, is that a very large percentage of inmates are seriously mentally ill. They are the most likely to commit suicide. Most of those with brain diseases should not have been incarcerated, but rather should have been forced into psychiatric care long before they committed their crimes. By facilitating their deaths, it seems to me we are just adding to the mistakes inherent in our system.
[i]”2)I would not recommend reintegrating them, thus avoiding this issue altogether.”[/i]
You might give this some more thought. By saying you would not integrate any murderers–I don’t count anyone convicted of manslaughter as a murderer; but I do count all convicted of murder 2–you are saying that you think it is moral to lock a man up in a cage and deny him human company for decades? For as many as 70 years for the 20 year old murderer who lives to age 90? You will drive him insane. And all that to avoid an execution?
I just cannot imagine that any moral human being being would favor life without parole and life in isolation.
If on the other hand, you are saying that you would integrate murderers, but only with other murderers, then your position is not so much that you are against the death penalty, but that you would prefer it be done by other inmates. Because chances are strong that is what would happen. That is what happened to Jeffrey Dahmer. Wisconsin has no death penalty. They simply let murderers kill other murderers.
[i]”3)I don’t believe in outsourcing our “torture” and again would allow the convict to choose whether or not to end his life.”[/i]
Once again, you are ignoring–perhaps you are unaware of the reality–the reality of mentally ill inmates. They are a very large percentage of short- and long-term inmates.
Why, out of curiosity, do you oppose outsourcing of prison care? Are you familiar with the outsourcing California is now doing?
And what makes you think that outsourcing makes “torture” more likely that insourcing?
[i]”4) not being well acquainted with either the judicial or penal system I don’t know whether what you say about lawyers motivation to fight longer and harder if a life is at stake is true. I suspect it would be highly variable based on the individual.”[/i]
I concede my statement is conjecture. But think about each of the death penalty cases we have had in recent years in California. Every one of them gets a very serious, closely scrutinized review of the evidence in his case. Each one gets a very highly qualified, highly paid team of appellate lawyers who appeal on multiple levels. And every one gets a lot of public attention, especially from outsiders who are interested in stopping the death penalty.
It was this kind of attention which brought to light what–in my opinion–is compelling evidence that Kevin Cooper is not guilty of the murders for which he was convicted and sentenced to die.
Coooper has not yet been freed. However, I think the case against him is so problematic, so likely corrupt, that it is just a matter of time before he gets a new trial or is set free. All of that evidence of his inculpability in this case came about because he is on death row.
Consider his case if he had instead been sentenced to life without parole. His case would have received no publicity. He would not have had such a strong appellate team or so many motivated investigators who found the evidence against him lacking (or even exculpating).
Given that he remains on death row, my case is not yet made. I am sure if you asked Mr. Cooper if he would rather have had a sentence of life without, then ceteris paribus he would say yes. But all is not equal. If he knew that with just a life without sentence that his team of investigators, and outsiders and so on would not have materialized, then it seems likely in his case he would die in prison, probably an innocent man.
Some really good points and discussion here. No argument from me about taking too long to impose the sentence after a jury convicts. This is another issue that negates and causes jury nullification since most know even if they vote guilty, it probably will never be carried out.
As for overturning the death law or changing it, the people do have the power, if every jury member refused to vote yes, it would stop in it’s tracks. Once that message was clear, the DAs would stop trying since they would get tired of being told No. So education of the potential jurors and pointing out the flaws, enable to public to “Just say no”.
As a matter of fact, during jury selection if a juror does not want to be locked up on a jury for a long time, all they have to do is say no, I will not vote for the death penalty. Then the DA will kick them off the jury. Another way to get out of jury duty is to say “I do not have faith in the elected DA and I don’t think I would vote guilty no matter what I heard the DA say, since I don’t trust him”. That would be another immediate DA challenge and you would get out of jury duty. The old saying the only people who get on a jury are the ones too stupid to get out of it, applies to the two previous statements. I don’t agree and think some still want to serve and feel it is a civic duty to serve, but it is very easy to get out of jury duty if you want out.
Not to mention, if several hundred jurors all said they would not vote for the death penalty, it would send a strong message to the DA and the courts, so my point is, it really is still up to the people.
A problem I see with swift executions would be what about the errors and cases where after 20 years they find they have the wrong person, once he is dead there really is not appeal or no real purpose for an appeal.
rdc” [i]”1. We have many inmates who have been convicted of murder – remember that we have a variety of laws for when someone is killed wrongfully – from manslaughter up to murder first degree and murder second.”[/i]
I was not including all homicides as “murder.” Manslaughter one and two are lesser crimes and in my opinion don’t call for very long prison sentences in most cases (depends somewhat on priors, of course).
I do believe that, assuming the person is of sound mind and capable of distinguishing right from wrong and able to understand the consequences of his actions, anyone who would intentionally and unlawfully kill another human being, whether preplanned (murder one) or not planned (murder two) deserves our worst punishment. I also would include anyone who attempted to commit a murder. It does not make sense to me to not consider a person who intentionally and illegally shot someone in the head, and that person lived due to the great work of ER doctors, any less dangerous than someone else who did the same thing but his victim died. To me, both types are equally heinous.
[i]”We only sentence people to death for murder one, and only if they qualify for special circumstances – I don’t remember how many there are but they run the gammut from killing a peace officer in the line duty, to multiple deaths, murder with sexual components, etc.”[/i]
That is right. Were it up to me, I would sentence all murderers to death.
[i]”2. Most inmates convicted of murder are convicted of second degree murder – and are committed for indeterminate sentences – 7 to life, 15 to life, and the like. Some of them get out eventually when the Board of Parole Hearings (with the Gov’s concurrance) finds them “suitable” for parole. They stay on parole supervision for life. There are 712 condemned inmates at San Quentin and one of the women’s prisons – there are thousands of other inmates who have been convicted of murder.”[/i]
Again, were it up to me, every person convicted of murder (including murder two) would be executed for his crime upon exhaustion of the appeals process, which I think should be done within 4 years of conviction. Years one and two should be used to find fault with the rulings of the trial court; and years one to four should be used to find fault with the evidence. If there were no problems found with either, execution could take place in 48 months.
[i]”3. Rifkin mentions the possible risk of integrating convicted murderers into the general population. I assume he meant condemned inmates rather than others.”[/i]
Actually, rdc, this goes back to a previous thread on Vanguard, where the death penalty abolitionists argued that everyone convicted of murder–I don’t think they mentioned M-1 or M-2–deserves life without parole. Someone then said that would result in murders of other inmates. And the abolitionists replied, “I would keep them in isolation–meaning 24/7 without contact with other inmates.”
And as I note above, I think that is cruel and inhumane.
Rifkin says something about “a very large percentage of inmates are seriously mentally ill.”
Simply not so. If you want to make statements like this you should check your facts. In California about 23% of inmates are getting mental health services. About half of those have serious and persistent mental illness. Your comments about hangmen’s nooses is provocative, in poor taste and suggests a lack of understanding of why people contemplate suicide and those who may have serious mental illness.
People commit suicide in prison for a variety of reasons. Suggesting that we allow people to commit suicide is somewhat barbaric, in my opinion, and ignores the facts that 85-90% of those who commit suicide have a treatable mental illness. You should educate yourself about mental illness, it’s treatment, and a little about suicide before making such uninformed statements.
Your legal theory re. murder and the death penalty is about two hundred years old. What an easy solution – sentence all murderers to death. I thought, as a society, we had moved beyond that. But maybe you are just being provocative and dramatic. I would hope so.
Rifkin.
“a large percentage of inmates are inmates are seriously mentally ill ” I would not advocate treating them in the same way. I do not believe these people should be facing the same penalties as those who do not suffer from mental illness and should be hospitalized, not incarcerated.
” by saying you would not integrate any murders”
I did not intend to imply that. My comment was meant to apply only to those condemned to death.
” I just cannot imagine that any moral human being would favor life without parole and kite in isolation”
I think this may be a lack of imagination on your part. Again consider the case of a convict who knows himself to be innocent. I can certainly imagine hoping for the chance to exonerate myself rather than merely wishing for a swift death. I can also imagine the case of someone who is truly repentant and might value the chance to do something constructive with his life.
I am very aware of our outsourcing of prisoners ( being close friends with several people working in various position within the prison system)
and I oppose this for several reasons, the most important being that I feel that in many cases it punishes the innocent family members more than the convict.
“consider his case if he had instead been sentenced to life without parole” I agree with you that his case might not have gotten as much attention, but I agree even more that this is pure speculation since we cannot possibly know what would have happened.
RR: “I don’t know if this is correct. I think ending the death penalty would have to be done by an initiative, because the state law in effect was the result of Proposition 7 of 1978. (I looked for the exact language of that prop on-line, but could not find it.)”
From nodeathpenalty.org: “The platform, approved April 18 at the party’s convention in Los Angeles, includes a declaration that Democrats will “replace the death penalty with a term of permanent incarceration, which will serve to protect the public, provide swift and certain justice for victims’ families, and save the state an estimated $1 billion over the next five years.”
From deathpenaltyinfo.org: “Of the many proposals Gov. Schwarzenegger has put before the voters and the legislature to rescue the state from financial meltdown — all of which have failed — none are quite as simple or reasonable as suspending the death penalty and saving $1 billion in five years.”
From caprogressreport.com: “It seems that the Illinois legislator that sponsored the legislation repealing the death penalty has heard some news: Gov. Quinn plans to sign landmark legislation today that will repeal the state’s death penalty, said a key House lawmaker and sources briefed on his plans.”
Certainly legislatures in other states have repealed the death penalty. It appears the same can be done in CA…
To medwoman: Advocate for assisted suicide in prison? Are you kidding? It is not uncommon for low level offenders to be raped within the prison walls and then want to commit suicide bc of it…
To Rich Rifkin: The death penalty for second degree murder? Are you kidding? You want to execute drunk drivers who kill someone?
rdc: [i]Rifkin says something about “a very large percentage of inmates are seriously mentally ill.” Simply not so. If you want to make statements like this you should check your facts. In California about 23% of inmates are getting mental health services. About half of those have serious and persistent mental illness.[/i]
This Dept. of Justice study was published in 2006 ([url]http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=Top_Story&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=38174[/url]) and there is good reason to believe that the situation has become worse since: [quote]The release today of a study by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) showing than [b]64 percent of local jail inmates, 56 percent of state prisoners and 45 percent of federal prisoners have symptoms of serious mental illnesses[/b] is an indictment of the nation’s mental healthcare system. [/quote] RDC, if you have a source which indicates that the DOJ is wrong, let me know. Until then, I will continue to state: a large percentage of inmates across our country suffer from mental illness.
Tp Rich Rifkin: Such statistics don’t suprise me, and it does show a failed mental health system… yet we are cutting mental health services to the bone… so more mentally ill will end up in jail…
To EMR
I was not suggesting that assissted suicide means be made available to all prisoners , only to those already on death row,and then only to those not diagnosed with a serious mental illness who I feel should be treated , not incarcerated.
Rich, thanks for asking. The DOJ report used simple self-reports from inmates. Most of us in the field know that 1) self-reports are simply that – self-reports and rigorous counts of disorders need more than that; and 2) “symptoms of serious mental illnesses” is a far cry from a full-blown disorder. You and I have, at times, “symptoms of serious mental illness” – sleeplessness, worry, etc. The BJS reports also notes that about 18% of state inmates are prescribed psychotropic medications. That jives with most other studies that put the prevalence at somewhere between 15-20%. As always, the devil is in the details.
A better reference is an article in the current issue of Lancet (Fazel & Baillargeon) entitled “The Health of Prisoners” which analyzed many studies of mental problems in prisoners and verifies what most consider to be accurate: 1 in 7 have a treatable mental disorder. The BJS usually is on the mark with its publications but that one made many of us in the field moan. More accurate estimates are contained in the published studies of Lamb & Weinberger.
[b]To Rich Rifkin: The death penalty for second degree murder? Are you kidding? You want to execute drunk drivers who kill someone? [/b]
Normally, when a drunk driver kills someone in California, that is never murder. That is “gross vehicular manslaughter.” I am not saying I favor the death penalty for any convictions of manslaughter. I am saying that I favor the death penalty for all murderers, including those convicted of Murder-2:
[i]”Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable “heat of passion” or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender’s obvious lack of concern for human life.[/i]
Here is an example I recall of second degree murder. A man in Oakland (roughly around 1990) came home with a loaded gun and intended to kill his wife. They lived about 2 blocks from me in West Oakland, near McClymond’s High School.
She was home and her sister was also in the house. The husband found them in a bedroom, took aim and fired with the intention of murdering his wife. However, he was not a good shot. His bullet instead hit the sister in the forehead and killed her.
The man dropped the gun and ran off. He was charged with and convicted of second degree murder, because he had no [i]malice aforethought[/i] toward his sister in law. He was sentenced to life in prison. (I cannot recall whether he could be paroled.)
That is the sort of case which, to me, deserves the death penalty under M-2. My feeling is that anyone who would commit murder-2 is just as dangerous and just as heinous as someone who would commit murder-1. Moreover, I would favor the death penalty for him had his victim survived. It’s not the outcome in my mind. It’s the malice.
As to your statement about executing drunk drivers who kill, you need to look at Penal Code Section 191.5:
[b]191.5. Manslughter[/b] (a) [u]Gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought[/u], in the driving of a vehicle, where the driving was in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153 of the Vehicle Code, and the killing was either the proximate result of the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony, and with gross negligence, or the proximate result of the commission of a lawful act that might produce death, in an unlawful manner, and with gross negligence.
(b) Vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought, in the driving of a vehicle, where the driving was in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153 of the Vehicle Code, and the killing was either the proximate result of the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony, but without gross negligence, or the proximate result of the commission of a lawful act that might produce death, in an unlawful manner, but without gross negligence.
(c) (1) Except as provided in subdivision (d), gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated in violation of subdivision (a) is [u]punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for 4, 6, or 10 years[/u].
(2) Vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated in violation of subdivision (b) is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year or by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months or 2 or 4 years.
(d) a person convicted of violating subdivision (a) who has one or more prior convictions of this section or of paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 192, subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 192.5 of this code, or of violating Section 23152 punishable under Sections 23540, 23542, 23546, 23548, 23550, or 23552 of, or convicted of Section 23153 of, the Vehicle Code, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a term of 15 years to life. Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 2930) of Chapter 7 of Title 1 of Part 3 shall apply to reduce the term imposed pursuant to this subdivision.
————
There are rare exceptions when a drunk driver kills people that he is committing murder. See subsction (e):
[b](e)[/b] This section shall not be construed as prohibiting or precluding a charge of murder under Section 188 [u]upon facts exhibiting wantonness and a conscious disregard for life to support a finding of implied malice[/u], or upon facts showing malice consistent with the holding of the California Supreme Court in People v. Watson, 30 Cal. 3d 290.
(f) This section shall not be construed as making any homicide in the driving of a vehicle or the operation of a vessel punishable which is not a proximate result of the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to felony, or of the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner.
(g) For the penalties in subdivision (d) to apply, the existence of any fact required under subdivision (d) shall be alleged in the information or indictment and either admitted by the defendant in open court or found to be true by the trier of fact.
[i]”The DOJ report used simple self-reports from inmates.”[/i]
True: “The findings in this report were based on data from personal interviews with State and Federal prisoners in 2004 and local jail inmates in 2002.”
However, there were criteria they used to determine an inmate’s mental health status which were objective:
[i]”Mental health problems were defined by two measures: a recent history or symptoms of a mental health problem. They must have occurred in the 12 months prior to the interview. A recent history of mental health problems included a clinical diagnosis or treatment by a mental health professional. Symptoms of a mental disorder were based on criteria specified in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV).
“A recent history of mental health problems was measured by several questions in the BJS’ inmate surveys. Offenders were asked about whether in the past 12 months they had been told by a mental health professional that they had a mental disorder or because of a mental health problem had stayed overnight in a hospital, used prescribed medication, or received professional mental health therapy. These items were classified as indicating a recent history of a mental health problem.”[/i]
If you want to read the study and look at their methodology, here is the actual report ([url]http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/mhppji.pdf[/url]).
Rich: I don’t understand why you think by cutting and pasting articles you know more than someone who actually works in the field.
rdc: [i]”In California about 23% of inmates are getting mental health services.”[/i]
DOJ: [i]”64 percent of local jail inmates, 56 percent of state prisoners and 45 percent of federal prisoners have symptoms of serious mental illnesses.”[/i]
DAVE: [i]”Don’t you think that someone working in the industry is going to be fairly well aware of these issues?”[/i]
I have no idea. I don’t know what jail guards know or what janitors at jails know or what clinical psychologists know about the larger population statistics. I suspect you don’t know what they know and what they don’t know.
Second, I don’t even know that this poster you refer to really “works in the industry.” I don’t know him. I don’t know if you know him.
And third, he has provided no verifiable facts. He simply made a claim of “about 23%” and said my claim that “a very large percentage of inmates are seriously mentally ill” was “simply not so.”
Notably, I based my claim on the DOJ statistics. Now he says he knows more than the DOJ knows, but has not demonstrated that.
So for you to doubt my claim and believe his (because he said he works for the Dept. of Corrections) is daft.
One more thing: even if rdc is 100% correct that the right figure is 23%, that does not in the least contradict my claim that a very large percentage of inmates are mentally ill. To my mind, 23% is a very large figure. Those are all people, who, if we had a very good mental health care system, likely could have been productive citizens, but instead have led problematic lives which led them into the criminal justice system.
Part 1:
It’s always fair to ask why I should be believed. Here’s to transparency and why I say that 23% of CDCR inmates are treated in our mental health system: I’m a senior psychologist at the CDCR mental health program’s headquarters in Sacramento. On a daily basis I see downloads of data that track the number of inmates in treatment in the CDCR’s Mental Health Services Delivery System. The proportion of inmates in mental health treatment in CDCR has been going up, particularly at our lowest – outpatient – levels of care. I have been a psychologist in practice for over 15 years and have treated patients in the VA system, UC Davis Medical Center, and since 2001 the California Department of Corrections. If you want more, I will send a CV.
It’s also fair to be critical of sources of data and how they are reported. Let’s take a closer look at the BJS study and why many of us moan about it. It’s also important to take any one survey or research project and place it in the larger context of the literature in the field.
There is a difference in psychiatric research between counting mental health problems and counting diagnoses. Diagnoses – at least those found in the American Psychiatric Association’s DSM-IV – are not just symptom counts. They include a measure of impairment, and rule-outs, typically if the symptoms were due to a medical disorder or the effects of a substance. So for instance, one cannot give a diagnosis of schizophrenia if the hallucinations were due to the effects of methamphetamine or hallucinogenic drugs.
The authors of the BJS survey made no claim that they were reporting diagnoses – which require detailed diagnostic interviewing and evaluation of the amount of impairment, symptom duration, co-occurring drug use, etc. The authors are very careful to say: “The surveys did not assess the severity or duration of the symptoms, and no exclusions were made for symptoms due to medical illness, bereavement, or substance use…Estimates of DSM-IV symptoms of mental disorder provide a baseline indication of mental health problems among inmates rather than a clinical diagnosis of mental illness.” (page 2).
I found some of the statements in the study to be confusing and could lead one to think they were making diagnoses. For instance, on page 1 they say: “More than two-fifths of State prisoners (43%) and more than half of jail inmates (54%) reported symptoms that met the criteria for mania.” To a lay individual it looks like they are saying these inmates have a diagnosis of mania. But go to the DSM-IV and read how a diagnosis of mania is made and you will see that reporting three symptoms does not a manic episode make. They have to last a week and not be due to drugs or medical condition – questions that the survey did not ask (duration and rule-outs). And mania is not a standalone diagnosis – it’s part of Bipolar Disorder (new name for Manic Depressive Disorder).
(I am posting Part 2 separately)
Part 2:
Another issue with this survey is that on page 1 the authors declare that 56% of state prisoners have mental health problems within the last 12 months (as defined by endorsing one of 22 symptoms in the questionnaire) and then in the table just below these statements they report that only 24% of state inmates have a recent history of mental health problems. The 24% is based on inmate reports of being told by a mental health professional in the last 12 months that they have a diagnosed mental health disorder, staying overnight in a hospital for psychiatric reasons in the last 12 months, or taking psychiatric medications in the last 12 months. The 24% estimate is curiously close to that of other studies of inmate mental health disorders and treatment that also use psychotropic medication, hospital stays, or being told by a professional as proxies for serious mental health conditions. The first two (meds and hospitalization) suggest more serious problems that impair the inmate’s functioning to the point of intervention. The upshot of this for me is that inmates report problems, but many of these problems are not part of diagnosable and treatable mental health disorders. And this makes sense, inmates and many of us in the free community could report the occurrence in the last 12 months of one or more of the 22 problems listed in the survey. But far fewer of us will have had the full set of criteria for the diagnosis of a mental disorder and then receive treatment. It’s the same as if I went into my doctor’s office and reported some symptoms but he/she saw that only a few of them were worthy of further explanation and could suggest a disease or disorder that might benefit from treatment.
There have been other studies of mental health disorders (not just symptoms) among inmate populations. A good review is by Lamb and Weinberger: “Persons with Severe Mental Illness in Jails and Prisons: A Review,” in New Directions in Mental Health Services, 2001, pp. 29-49. The authors suggest, based on their review, that the prevalence of serious mental health disorders (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depressive disorder) is between 10-15%. Most systems focus on those disorders and in our system about 4,400 inmates are treated for chronic severe mental disorders, in which those three disorders predominate.
It’s interesting to note that a BJS study by Ditton, in the same series (the Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities) and published in 1999 estimated that 16.2% of state inmates were “mentally ill.” Mentally ill inmates reported that they either had a mental or emotional condition, or received treatment for one (meds, hospitalization, therapy). Table 1 (page 2) notes that 16% had been hospitalized, 24% had taken meds, and 30% had received other forms of treatment. You can find it here:
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=787
So, Rich, I would suggest that looking critically at the BJS study you cited, and add in other empirical data and reviews, that somewhere between 15-25% of state prison inmates suffer from a severe mental disorder requiring treatment. (As a comparison, estimates of the prevalence of severe mental disorders in the community run lower – between 5% to 15% at any one time.)
And finally, I agree with you: 23% is too high. Many of these individuals, if treated in the community would not have found their way into the prison system. Many could be productive citizens – a small percentage not. Our country has stripped its public mental health system to the bare bones (or never funded it adequately) and left many of our most severely mentally ill citizens without adequate help. Many thousands of others who suffer from mental health problems could be helped but cannot get to a mental health provider or cannot afford one. There continue to be barriers to access treatment although good treatments do exist for the most common mental disorders.
First, let me say I appreciate your contribution, rdc, and I have no reason to doubt your portrayal of your expertise and position. I think I jumped over the edge when I thought you implied above that we don’t have a larger percentage of mentally ill inmates, regardless of the exact percentage.
I do think, though, that this statement, while true on its face, misses a much bigger point:
[i]”Our country has stripped its public mental health system to the bare bones (or never funded it adequately) and left many of our most severely mentally ill citizens without adequate help.”[/i]
There are a couple of problems with that.
First, we have a problem with how we spend money as much as how much we spend. In Yolo County, for example, the mental health budget is roughly double what it was a decade ago. (I know that, when you account for inflation, saying it is double is misleading. But nonetheless, we are spending much more than we did 10 years ago.) This fiscal year the county will spend something like $17 million. (I won’t bother to look up the numbers, but, believe me, that is in the ballpark.) Of that $17 million, close to $12 million will go for the salaries, benefits, pensions and so on of administrative personnel in the Dept. of Mental Health and Alcohol Abuse. That is more than 70% of the funds going to people who don’t diagnose, don’t prescribe medications and don’t provide therapeutic treatment. That 70% is not helping patients. It is fully the byproduct of our system which is designed to overpay many and various public employees.
I looked (a few months ago) at the budgets for that department a decade ago and more. What I found was that the amount for administrative expenses used to be around 10% of the total budget. Now the amount for treatment for patients was just about the same in nominal dollars back then, ranging from $4 million to $5 million per year. So what has happened is that we have transferred a benefit from poor, mentally ill people to middle and upper middle income administrators. (Note that for a $100,000 per year deputy assistant in Yolo County, it costs the taxpayers $170,000 in total comp. For the $150,000 top admins–we have plenty of them–it costs more than $230,000 in total comp. And keep in mind, these folks are not PhDs or MDs. They would make one-third as much in private industry.)
Secoond, even if we had all the money needed and we were not blowing most of it on administrative overhead, our system errs too much too often on the side of a patient’s civil liberties. That is, without forced treatment (especially for schizophrenics and severe bipolars) it is almost impossible to keep them on their necessary medications. So they see a shrink, he orders anti-psychotic meds, the meds work, and at some point the patient just stops taking them, and in a worst case scenario spirals downhills and winds up doing some irrational crime, which lands him in jail.
Now, as you must know, we have a law in California, known as Laura’s Law, which was authored by Helen Thomson, when she was in the Assembly. It pretty much solves this problem, by allowing a family to see a judge who can order a diagnosis by psychiatrists and can, upon their recommendation, force the patient into treatment as needed.
The problem is that in all but Nevada County, where the Laura in question, who was my cousin’s next door neighbor, was murdered, nowhere in California is Laura’s Law in effect, because the counties say they don’t have enough money to put it in place.
I concede, thus, as you said, that we have never (to this extent) properly funded mental health care, especially on the outpatient basis. But because I am aware of the terrible fiscal irresponsibility of our Board of Supes with regard to giving away too much in endless bad labor contracts, I cannot help but think that a better run government would be able to fund mental health and Laura’s Law if it so desired.
Very good discussion…
Just for added context, the Older Adult Program, a mobile assessment team funded by Prop 63, was essentially eviscerated by the budget cuts. So now only those low income elderly w severe mental illness will be assisted… while those elderly who suffer alone and in silence, which is quite common, are neglected. All efforts are being directed towards the fewer numbers of seriously mentally ill, while those far greater in number w mental illness who are silent or not as outwardly symptomatic go untreated…
Rich, I’m not really interested in bickering about salaries and that stuff. It’s bigger than poor management. It seems that all you do is complain about salaries for administrators, or fire fighters, or school teachers while praising the private sector – who doesn’t want to pay for mental health treatment in its health insurance packages for employees. The public has never had the stomach for full funding for adequate mental health treatment – look at the battles Helen Thomson had when she was trying to get mental health parity passed in the 90’s. This is not about one set (or even two or three) of supervisors. Public funding for treatment of mentally ill citizens is a public policy issue that has been pushed under the rug for years. Realignment solved some issues and Prop 63 helped a little. But the whole thing is a mess that needs to be rethought.