Discretion, Treatment and Alternatives to Jail

PART 2

WESTBOROUGH, MA July 16, 2017 In last weeks publication I introduced the problem of mental health and co-occurring substance abuse with some ideas about alternative restitution and treatment. These involve greater discretionary awareness among police officers.  More importantly options to jail require viable alternatives that will end the revolving door of minor criminality coupled with treatment for the breadth of addiction seen on a daily basis by law enforcement.

Mental and Physical Health Screening

At time of arrest the individual must have some level of mental health assessment if mental illness is suspected or documented. When I was a police officer prior to 2015 we often asked the D.A. to provide a court clinic assessment of the suspect to rule out suicidal ideation or delusional thinking. This must also include a screening for dangerousness especially when a subject is arrested for intimate partner abuse. Next a health history questionnaire should be undertaken to screen for co-occurring illness – both physical and mental. If a diabetic suspect is held without access to his insulin he is at great risk of death from stroke. Similarly, a person arrested for assault who suffers from paranoid ideation is at greater risk of acting violently without access to psychiatric medication. Finally, an alcoholic brought to the jail with a blood alcohol level greater than 250 is at great risk for seizures and cardiac arrhythmias when delirium tremens begin 6-8 hours after his last drink. The risk to personal health in each of the scenarios above must be taken seriously and the obtained data should be factually corroborated. Police departments across the United States are pairing up with private agencies to provide in-house evaluation and follow-up of individuals who fall on the borderline and may not be easily discerned by the officer in the field.

Diversion Safety Plan

Next, the probation and parole department must obtain an accurate legal history prior to consideration for bail. A nationwide screen for warrants and criminal history based on previous addresses is essential. In many places these are being done routinely. In the case of someone being arrested for domestic violence he may have no convictions thus no finding of criminal history. For these individuals the dangerousness assessment may bring forth red flag data needed for greater public safety resulting in protection from abuse orders, mandated psychotherapy, and in some cases, no bail confinement when indicated. Releasing the person arrested for domestic violence without a viable safety plan increases the risk to the victim and her family, as well as the general public – including members of law enforcement.

Bail, Confinement, Mandated Treatment

There is some thinking that higher amounts of bail may lessen the proclivity of some offenders to breach the orders of protection drafted to protect victims and should result in revocation of bail and immediate incarceration when these occur. I have proposed a mandatory DV Abuse Registry that may be accessed by law enforcement to uncover the secret past of men who would control and abuse their intimate partners. This database would also include information on the number of active restraining orders and the expected offender’s response to the “stay away” order. In cases where the victim decides to drop charges there should be a mandatory waiting period of 90 days. During this waiting period the couple may cohabitate but the perpetrator must be attending a weekly program of restorative justice therapy and substance abuse education. Violations of these court ordered services are tantamount to violation of the original protection order (still in place) and victim safety plan and may result in revocation of bail. If the waiting period passes and the perpetrator has met the conditions of his bail than he may undergo an “exit” interview to determine whether or not the protection order / jail diversion plan may be extended.

Guardianship

In many jurisdictions the mentally ill cannot be forced to take medication nor can they be forced into treatment. Adherents to this belief advocate on the behalf of the chronically mentally ill for the right to make these individual choices – treatment or no treatment. Ostensibly advocates seem unconcerned for the public health risks associated with ongoing drug addiction and major mental illness. There needs to be an active system in place to provide guardianship to individuals with repeated failed treatment that mandates treatment for those who cannot remain in a program of sobriety and psychotherapy in lieu of incarceration. In many cases a family member may be appointed temporary guardian for up to 180 days that allows decisions to be made about patient care up to the guardian not the patient himself who may be unable to stay on track.