Hatcher begins her article by stating that the number of prisoners suffering from mental illness has been growing in jails over the last few years. Her article states that close to a million inmates suffering from mental health problems were incarcerated in U.S. jails in the year 2000 (Hatcher, 2009). She claims that the increased incarceration of people with mental health problems has resulted in increased cases of suicide inside the American jails. The author proposes the introduction of mechanisms for suicide intake screening and assessment to avert suicide attempts in correctional facilities (Hatcher, 2009).
The avoidance of suicide among inmates in jails is possible through screening new inmates and conducting periodic inmate assessments. It is vital to scrutinize the history of the inmates to establish whether there are past records of suicide attempts (Hatcher, 2009).The screening of inmates to check their probability for committing suicide may be done through asking relevant questions like, “are you currently thinking of committing suicide?” among others. In addition, there are diverse standard suicide evaluation tools applicable in the establishment of suicide threats and intention of the inmates. An example of these tools is the Scale for Suicidal Ideation (SSI). The tool is composed of twenty-one items administered by the interviewer to measures the indicators of suicide prevalence among inmates. The tool also helps in evaluation of suicide risk factors including the length and rate of ideation and the number of deterrents among others (Hatcher, 2009).
Characteristics of Suicide Attempts in a Large Urban Jail System With an Established Suicide Prevention Program
The article is about a study carried out to investigate characteristics of suicide attempts in a correctional facility in a Washington jail. The article provides useful evidence in support of the text topic regarding suicide prevention for mental health inmates in jail settings. The study found that the number of suicide cases reported among inmates with mental health were comparatively higher than for normal inmates (Goss, Peterson, Smith, Kalb, & Brodey, 2002). The article findings are in agreement with the text topic that the number of suicides among inmates with mental health issue is relatively higher in comparison to suicide among the normal inmates. The article findings are based on 132 suicide attempt observations made from 124 inmates. The authors found out that the frequency suicide attempt among inmates with mental illness was seventy-seven percent. On the other hand, the frequency of suicide attempt was lower (15 percent) in the general jail population (Goss et al., 2002, p. 575).
The study also established that three-quarters of the prisoners who tried to commit suicide had received mental health appraisal prior to their suicide attempt. In addition, the researchers found that suicide-related deaths were comparatively few than in jails without suicide prevention plans (Goss et al., 2002). The study findings support Hatcher’s claims that inmate screening and assessment is vital in jail settings. Despite the promising results, the study article did not give out the modalities or tools of screening new inmates for suicide prevalence.
Conclusion
Suicide prevention programs are crucial in jails especially among inmates with mental health issues. It is vital to institute suicide prevention interventions like additional suicide screening of inmates during jail intake and inmates treatment. It is crucial to probe inmates to check their past for cases of substance abuse, improve consultations regarding housing of inmates, and build consensus in decisions making.
References
Goss, J., Peterson, K., Smith, L., Kalb, K., & Brodey, B. (2002). Characteristics of suicide attempts in a large urban jail system with an established suicide prevention program. Psychiatric Services. 53, 574-579.
Hatcher, S. (2009). Suicide Prevention Programming in the Jail Setting. In T. Machi, C. Bradley & K. Ward (Eds.), Forensic social work: Psychosocial and legal issues in diverse practice settings (pp. 219- 227). New York, USA: Springer Publishing Company.