Addressing Inmates' Mental Health
It is easy for the average person to ignore the needs of those who are in prison. By definition, someone who has broken the law and is serving a sentence, has violated the rules of society and warrants little sympathy. Locking them away means you don’t have to think about them anymore.
For years, advocates of prison reform have been asking for an open debate about who is in prison versus who should be in prison. As inmate populations grow, the emphasis has been on nonviolent offenders and those serving time for what some consider minor offenses involving drugs. Would we be better served if we saved prison for those who pose an imminent safety threat and find another solution for the rest?
There is a strong argument to be made that alternatives to incarceration make more sense if our goal is to lock up the worst offenders for a very long time and help others — whose lives may be salvageable — make something of the rest of their lives. No one wants to take part in the discussion.
Tough Talk
In the aftermath of the murders of three members of the Petit family of Cheshire, some are trying to renew the debate, but it is being muffled by the tough talk of those promoting longer sentences for the lengthening list of those we wish to label the new incorrigibles.
There is an obvious contradiction. The tough on crime crowd also tends to be fiscally conservative. How can you put more people in prison without spending the money to build new prison cells?
In the unsettling days following the Petit murders, as politicians raced to take action, a kernel of public policy truth emerged during legislative hearings before the Judiciary Committee. Correction Commissioner Theresa Lantz, who is known as an honest and competent professional, told the committee that tougher sentencing laws and expanding prison populations may eventually require the state to build two new prison facilities; one for general population and one for the mentally ill.
Within 48 hours, her office was forced to clarify that she wasn’t proposing new prison construction, she was just thinking out loud that it would appear.
The idea of spending about $210 million for the two facilities was also stricken from the public record never to be repeated again.
It’s unfortunate this line of discussion has been cut off because statistics and our growing understanding of mental illness clearly show that a large percentage of the nation’s prison population suffers from some form of mental illness.
Treating mental illness might have the same positive effects on the system that incarceration alternatives would have on the daily population count.
There are three reasons lawmakers are reluctant to talk about mental health for convicts. The first is expense — the cost of providing health care to inmates is already incredibly expensive. Adding full scale mental health coverage would drive up the cost further. Second — showing compassion toward prison inmates — never mind spending more money on them—is not politically popular. Three — government spends money on crisis, not prevention.
Deciding to address mental illness in prison would improve conditions overall, give some prisoners a better chance to start fresh and make Connecticut a safer place by giving ex-convicts the tools to cope. Viewing it as a long-term crime prevention program will be more effective when the time is right and the campaign season has passed.
Dean Pagani is a former gubernatorial advisor. He is V.P. of Public Affairs for Cashman and Katz Integrated Communications in Glastonbury.
WBJ Web Partners
Most Recent
Most Recent
0 Comments