Introduction
Human Rights Watch in 2006 reports, “the number of mentally ill inmates in U.S. prisons and jails has quadrupled over the past six years” (Human Rights Watch, 2006). It further adds, “More than half of all prison and state inmates now report mental health problems, including symptoms of major depression, mania and psychotic disorders” (Human Rights Watch, 2006). The most distressing part of the report indicates, “there were an estimated 283,000 prison and jail inmates who suffered from mental health problems. That number is now estimated to be 1.25 million. The rate of reported mental health disorders in the state prison population is five times greater (56.2 percent) than in the general adult population (11 percent)” (Human Rights Watch, 2006).
Thus, the focal point of this paper is to explore the ethical, moral, and legal challenges of Mentally Ill prisoners after they are released. The paper would be based on opinion on the integration of advocacy within the human services field. This would include personal philosophy and individual approach to advocating within a specific agency setting, i.e. Advocates for the Mentally Ill prisoners (Mills, 2003). The argument would be in favor of the ideal that there are enough reasons and benefits for the better funding, better treatments, and for programs after release of the mentally ill prisoners.
Background
There are multiple reports from the Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, The World Organization Against Torture, and Prison Watch Internationale, Paris that suggest there is a predominant mode of human rights violations within the boundaries of the US prisons and these are mostly triggered by discrimination based on color and creed. There are reports of torturing and abusing mentally ill patient too (Broadhurst, 2003).
According to a report from Amnesty International, 1999, “Even when the USA has ratified human rights treaties, it has often done so only halfheartedly, with major reservations. For example, it has reserved the right to use the death penalty against juveniles, expressly forbidden by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which the United States ratified in 1992. The United States repeatedly has continued to use international law and intergovernmental systems when they serve U.S. foreign policy interests, but have sometimes discarded or condemned these systems when they are perceived to run counter to its interests.” (Amnesty International, 1998)
The text by John Irwin would be helpful in this context. One reason for the eminent criminologist John Irwin to venture this project of writing a 380 page book on US prisons is because those over the last quarter of the century the number of prisons in the US has increased almost ten times. “The rate of incarceration zoomed from 100 to over 500 per 100,000. As a result of this expansion and the punitive ideology that underpinned it, hundreds of new prisons were built at a cost in the billions of dollars, and completely new prison regimens were introduced. In this book, I examine the causes of this binge, the new forms of imprisonment it produced, and the particular and broader effects it caused.”(Irwin, 2005, 1) The findings was shocking. And all these take place at a time when “prisoners do not simply comply with the regimens imposed on them. They actively conspire to survive, to reduce their state of deprivation, to ease their moral condemnation, and to pursue their self-interests. To the extent that their situation allows, they fully or partly cooperate with other prisoners and form their social organizations with their values and rules to achieve their goals“. (Irwin, 2005, 7)
Mentally ill prisoners
During the studies Irwin found out that longer termed mentally ill prisoner i.e. mentally ill prisoners sentenced more than 5 years were, though not brutalized, extensively harmed by the newer form of imprisonment. This form of penalizing the prisoners led to a future problem and the prisoners found it very difficult to cope up to the society outside the prison walls once they were released. It is obvious that there are no specific grudges against these prisoners and the newer form of penalties are all well researched and impeccably implemented but the end words keep proving against these prisoners. This could be termed as discrimination against the mentally ill prisoners serving a longer sentence than 5 years but in reality it could be expressed as an experiment gone wrong. (Irwin, 2005)
Like most community linked organization, or in other words, organizations dealing with a larger number of members there is bound to be some form of discrimination whether one likes it or not. But the ideal situation is to place the discrimination under a certain amount of check to yield a long termed fruit for the organization or, more often than not, to survive. Down the line of history there has not been a single instance in any society over every strata of governance where discrimination was not a part of the machinery. This is true for every imperial, capitalist, socialist, communist, dictatorial, anarchist, feudal or fundamental state and mentally ill prisons are no different devoid of their location – Algeria or America. But discrimination against mentally ill prisoners is extremely inhuman as they have no way to counter the onslaught but to suffer the entire term (Stewart, 2007).
And it could not be just coincidence that 60% of the abuse and torture is targeted towards people of unstable mental health. Serious mentally ill prisoners and prisoners of unnatural sexual orientations also suffer the same fate but not in such degree, statistically. The nature of these abuses are not always the same and Irwin puts a historical aspect to this phenomenon by saying, “when we examine the history of humans living in societies governed by law, it is clear that unfair, unjust, cruel living conditions precipitate steady efforts on the part of individuals and groups to correct these conditions and to make things more humane and just. It is from the reformers’ efforts that legal systems have become as fair, just, and humane as they are. Legal systems left to evolve from the acts of unrestrained rulers will remain despotic, tyrannical, and unjust.” (Irwin, 2005, 5-6) Thus, when judgment is more often biased the it could be concluded without much deliberation that the result of this biased judgment would yield only more biased apprehension as an end product- in this case, the US prison.
Thus, it is obvious that sufferings undergone by the prisoners are extremely fatal and it is applicable in the context of the mentally ill prisoner. As they are not in their balanced self and as these harassments were incurred directly within the boundaries of the government, it is the duty of the government to arrange benefits for the better funding, better treatments and programs after release of the mentally ill prisoners (Holleran, 2004).
Legal principals on Biological aspect
Biological theories of crime relate crime to biological and genetic factors of individuals. These theories believe that crime is inherited, and by viewing past criminals and their offspring, you can predict future criminals. Biological theories have the potential to have a huge impact on social policy in the United States. If researchers can predict through genetics, which individuals will one day enter the justice system, social policies and programs can be created to assist this individual in overcoming any genetic predispositions that could make them a criminal. However, biological theories of crime can go too far, as it did in the U.S. Supreme Court Case, Buck v. Bell. This case in 1927 argued that a baby who was born illegitimately, and whose mother was also born illegitimately, should be sterilized, as it was certain this baby had inherited a genetic factor that would ensure it also would have a child out of wedlock. (Goddard, 2006)
Biological theories suffer from having no concrete proof there is a criminal gene. While some individuals may be more likely to contribute crime, not enough research has been conducted to determine if this is a product of biological or environmental factors. In addition, not all children of criminals go on to commit crimes of their own, so forcing someone to undergo punishment as a precaution is violating an individuals basic right of being considered innocent until proven guilty. Thus according to the reports of UCR, NIBRS and NCVS a person is only termed as a criminal when the person commits a crime and is found guilty by the judicial system. (CCC, 2007) In the same note a mentally ill prisoner cannot be termed as guilty and in this case there are evidences of mental instability. But still the mentally ill prisoners are forced to serve the sentences. The result of these imprisonments has been discussed and the fault entirely lies on the jurisdiction and the government. Thus, the government should be responsible some way and compensate this population. Thus, it is the duty of the government to arrange benefits for the better funding, better treatments and programs after release of the mentally ill prisoners (Stewart, 2007).
Ethical ground
From an ethical point of view assisting the prisoners who are seriously mentally ill generates an additional responsibility in the sense that it becomes more important to develop their case in a more vivid and integrated manner so that they can get the most out of a system. As human beings they are in a way invalid and are unable to judge for themselves in most of the occasions there their cases need to treat with more intricacy to yield the maximum beneficial result. (Lilly, 2007)
Moral ground
On moral grounds assisting the prisoners who are seriously mentally ill yield a certain level of understanding of the mostly unspoken pain of the sufferers. It becomes more important for an advocate to evaluate their present state of mind and work out a strategy that would be beneficial for the patients and the advocate at the same time. This requires a profound impetus of humane approach and an advocate should be able to present him as retiring while interacting with the patient and understanding the basic problem. The approach of an advocate should always be humble and modest. One should be unassuming in dealing with the patients and while presenting the argument an advocate should always convey the moral vibe in relation to the case concerned. (Broadhurst, 2003)
Legal ground
The legal challenges in this case are often high and difficult as the advocate is often left with impersonal documentations as tool. For this purpose it is essential to drive deep within the parameters of the case and extract the logical and legal conclusion that would be most beneficial for the prisoners. Indeed, legal proceedings always follow a rigid pathway of evidence and justification but it is the responsibility of an advocate to convey the common sense conclusion of a definite case or problem. (Holleran, 2004)
Personal ground
In general and on a personal ground the aspects of personal philosophy and individual approach to advocating or mediating within a specific agency setting such as the Advocates for the Mentally Ill prisoners are wide and multiple folds. But it should always be mentioned that the most important aspect of all in this case would be able to go deep into the subject matter with a near complete knowledge of whereabouts. This is the skill aspect of the trade. However, what matters to me as an individual is the ability to be as humane as possible so that the pain of the patient would yield enough influence to motivate a person to gain the maximum possible result for the patient.
Conclusion
It should be mentioned in the conclusion that numerous agencies assist the seriously mentally ill prisoners. Few of these could be enumerated as Kinsmen Foundation, Human Resources Skills and Development, The Rehab Foundation, Coastal Health Authority, Provincial Health Services Authority, US Legal Services Society and Medical Help, Health Sciences Association, United Way and The Law Foundation of Ministry of Health and working as an advocate or mediator through these agencies make the job much more easy as they are extremely influential and excellent in their job. However, it should be noted that there should be proper policies that enable the services to look after the benefits for the better funding, better treatments, and for programs after release of the mentally ill prisoners.
References
Amnesty International. 1998. United States of America – Rights for All. Amnesty International Publications. Web.
Broadhurst, R. (2003). The Probabilities Mentally ill Offender Re-Arrest. Criminal Behaviour And Mental Health 13(2), 121-139.
Consolidated Crime Chart. (2007). Reports: Consolidated Crime Chart of 2006. Christchurch: DRL Publication Ltd.
Goddard, J. (2006). Modern Principals of Criminology. Sydney: Howard & Price.
Holleran, D. (2004). On The Use Of The Total Incarceration Variable In Sentencing Research. Criminology 42(1), 211-240.
Human Rights Watch. (2006) U.S.: Number of Mentally Ill in Prisons Quadrupled. Human Rights Watch. Web.
Irwin, J. (2005). The Warehouse Prison: Disposal Of The New Dangerous Class. NY: Roxbury Pub Co.
Lilly, R. (2007). Counterblast: Mental Illness in Prison. The Howard Journal Of Criminal Justice 46(1), 72-75.
Mills, J. (2003). Predictive Validity Despite Social Desirability: Evidence For The Robustness Of Self-Report Among Offenders. Criminal Behaviour And Mental Health 13(2), 140-150.
Stewart, R. (2007). Victims And Court Procedure. The Howard Journal Of Criminal Justice 46(1), 43-59.