The U.S. Supreme Court’s May decision to order California to release nearly 40,000 prisoners from state prisons has had many people thinking one thing, “What’s next?” The thought of thousands of criminals being released onto California’s streets, neighborhoods, and cities may have aroused anxiety in
many residents, but this reaction signifies an important misunderstanding. The prisoners being released are at low-risk for violence. Many of them suffer from an undiagnosed mental illness, and most of them are not being treated. California prisoners have been held in tragic and inhumane conditions in which one prisoner was dying every five to six days from preventable, but untreated, medical and psychiatric causes. The decision to release low-risk inmates with psychological disabilities could mark an essential shift in the treatment of at-risk individuals locked up and left to deteriorate both mentally and physically.
Dr. James Gilligan, a psychiatrist with more than 40 years of experience working in the field of violence prevention, recently called the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Plata decision, a “major, and very positive, historical event” capable of “undoing two of the most damaging and destructive mistakes that have been made in American life in the past half century, one in our criminal justice system, and the other in our mental health system.”
Most would agree that people suffering with mental illness belong in a safe place. Yet, while we wince at the electro-shock treatments of the past, our society is all too quick to throw suffering individuals behind bars into devastating conditions. Often, prisoners with mental health issues are tossed into this crippled system for misunderstood or petty crimes resulting from undiagnosed psychological disorders. As Dr. Gilligan’s pointed out, “Most prisons do more to stimulate violence and crime than they do to prevent it. Inmates often have to become violent in order to survive… Punishment is the most powerful stimulus of violence.”
This statement reminds me of an instance in which a bipolar young man who was addicted to alcohol and suffering from hallucinations and paranoia was presenting a danger to himself. Because there was no mental health care facility available, the man’s concerned father called 911 to have him hospitalized. When the police arrived, they grabbed the man who, in his stupor, took a swing at one of the officers. As a result, the young man was jailed and charged for assaulting a police officer. In lieu of proper treatment, the boy was placed in an environment that is likely to force a non-violent person to become violent.
Keeping a person in jail costs more than it would to facilitate the education and mental health care for that same individual. As Gilligan’s famously pointed out, “A year in jail would pay for a year in Yale.” Still, our society has shifted to a model of punishment that not only fails to prevent violence but actually perpetuates it. So what can California do to help put a stop to aggressive crime? What can any state do to avoid the fatal error of mass incarceration as a means of preventing violence? The answer lies in the question: when it comes to violence, prevention, not punishment, is the answer. Programs exist that have been proven to deter people from becoming violent and to reduce risk of re-offense for those who have already committed violent acts. These strategies include:
Alternative Rehabilitation Programs
Programs that promote understanding and reversal of violent behavior rather than punishment have been proven to greatly reduce recidivism and violent behavior in prisoners. In 1997, the Resolve to Stop the Violence Program (RSVP), was founded in San Francisco. This program was designed to take an active approach in ending the cycle of violence that exists in the current prison system. While in custody, RSVP participants took part in a curriculum designed to change the embedded attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors that lead to violence.
While there have been a number of restorative justice projects throughout the nation, this unique combination of mandated male-role reeducation and post-release programs supporting ex-offender accountability, victim restoration, and violence prevention effectively addressed violent behavior and helped to reverse it. The rate of violent re-offenses was 83 percent lower for members of this group who had been in the program for four months or more than it was for the prisoners who had been in an ordinary jail for the same amount of time. Unfortunately, RSVP was shut down due to lack of funding. Yet, with reduced funding going toward holding California prisoners, the reinstatement or establishment of a program like RSVP might now be possible and, in turn, have a real impact on reducing violence.
Prisoner Education
Education is a true antidote to violence risk. Pell Grants that have helped underprivileged individuals to get an education have acted as an active diverter from a path toward violence. Research by the U.S. Department of Education has shown that prisoners who participate in a state correctional education program are 29 percent less likely to be re-incarcerated. Thus, improving our education system is a necessary step to stopping violence. The money saved by imprisoning fewer offenders can and should be used to do exactly that.
Assessing Risk
Years ago, my colleagues at The Glendon Association and I developed an assessment scale that helps predict the likelihood of an individual to be violent. The Firestone Assessment of Violent Thoughts (FAVT) was published in 2008 as a tool for predicting violent thoughts that may ultimately lead to violent behavior. In developing the FAVT, data was gathered on more than 600 prisoners, parolees, and domestic violence perpetrators. Such data can be invaluable to determining how to treat individuals at risk for violence, not only by assessing their risk levels but by helping to determine what’s led to their behavior.
Early Intervention
More than 25 years of research in the field of violence has taught me that the roots of violence are planted early. A colleague of mine recently said, “If you want to stop gang violence, pay less attention to locking up gang members and more attention to helping educate their pregnant girlfriends.” Preventing violence means equipping parents with the skills needed to help their child to grow up physically and mentally healthy. Issues of attachment, attunement, and trauma all feed into the psyche of a violent individual. The more that mental health counselors and care providers reach out to communities, and to parents in particular, offering them the support and education they need to provide a stable environment for their children, the less violence we will see in those communities.
Reestablish Mental Health Facilities
When state-funded mental hospitals were closed down in the 1980s and 1990s, no adequate large-scale replacement was ever instated, leaving mentally ill adults virtually outcast from society. This put the burden of their care disproportionately in the hands of law enforcement, who were often left with no choice but to incarcerate them, frequently among violent offenders. The establishment of neighborhood mental hospitals would provide the proper care to many people suffering with a mental illness. By offering long-term inpatient mental care and improving community mental health services, we would make great strides in keeping individuals with psychological disorders out of penitentiaries.
