Does it bother anyone else that peoples can get “sentenced” to a mental hospital?

Lately in the news I’ve been hearing a lot about those teenage girls that tried to kill another girl and that they’ve now been sentenced to 25+ years in a mental hospital. I agree that they definitely need extensive psychiatric treatment and I want them to receive it, but being sentenced to a specific period of time, when in reality recovery doesn’t have a time deadline, is in bad taste. It makes psychiatric treatment sound like a punishment.

And to me, hospitals are about healing and bettering yourself and I feel like all of the talk in the media lately has led people to be making a lot of comments about how dangerous mental hospital patients are and instills fear. The reality of most of us who have been to these hospitals are harmless and are just there to be safe and work on ourselves.

I get that there are different institutions for the “criminally insane” so-to-speak, but I feel like the public (or at least the social media comments I’ve seen) lump us all into one category.

Idk, I hate the stigma that gets placed on us for getting the treatment we need. These are just my thoughts. I’d be curious to hear others’ thougths.

I don't know what to say other than I agree. People who have been convicted of serious crimes should not be allowed in the same psych wards as those of us who admit ourselves for treatment.

And there is a big stigma around psych wards. In many hospitals they are not any different than any other section, except for the issues the patients are dealing with. I know in some hospitals they are crazy and scary places (I'm speaking from experience). I've been in some psychiatric hospitals that are like freaking resorts, and some that are like prisons.

Seesaw

I agree - the lack of compassion for these girls was sickening; yes they did something terrible but they were not well themselves and also minors, both of which impacted on their capacity.

Can someone link an article? I missed this story?

Yeah, I definitely agree with that paradises versus prisons pet, Seesaw. One place I went was amazing an the other was literally a prison and there was a lot of violence and no therapy.

Article link:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...r-man-stabbing

Wow, that is awful. But they were 12 when it happened, so I imagine that something very wrong must be wrong with them and that a psychiatric commitment is appropriate. I also can't believe they were tried as adults when they were 12 when the crime was committed. And also, the sentence is a minimum of 3 years and a max od 25. It sounds like she could be out well before 25 years.

So in most psych wards, they have "solitary confinement" for dangerous patients. I hope those two would be kept in solitary until they are deemed safe. And that they would never be left unsupervised. It also sounds like they should never be allowed Internet access, which most psych wards don't allow anyways without supervision.

Geez that is just messed up.

No it doesn't.

There are criminal mental facilities that are not for general population.

Legal info: a mental evaluation is done to determine if there is a serious mental problem present, if it is amenable to therapy, if the particular person will benefit. Think of 25 years as life with the possibility of parole.
They won't get out because their 25 years are up...legal ways to prevent this. If they are deemed no longer a threat to society they may be paroled earlier. But 25 years indicates a severe mental problem. Supreme Court has said they cannot be sentenced indefinitely. But they definitely will not be set lose on society just because 25 years are up.

Without knowing the context of the situation - namely the circumstances of the event, what lead up to it, what kind of relationships the girls had (were they happy and supportive or were they living in abuse or neglect?) - it is impossible to really to make conclusions.

I do however agree with the comment that their mental illnesses must be considered to be unmanageable in order for what appears to be the maximum penalty.

Sociopathy and psychopathy come to mind. Can one really recover from these things; especially when such an extreme act has occurred? In my own opinion these things cannot be fixed and I am not so sure I want someone who has acted accordingly responsible for their own lives such as the taking of one's medications (you can't force that on someone here). The recidivism of such extreme examples on release is high.

Thus, on the surface of this situation, I am inclined to agree with such a sentence.

I am still inclined to believe one does the punishment that befits the crime.

tbh this sounds more like psychosis to me, and thus treatable.

Around here when you commit a crime you'll be evaluated whether you are accountable, diminished accountable, or not accountable.
Accountable: you'll get a sentence and you'll serve that.
Diminished accountable: you'll get a shorter sentence and then you'll go to the clinic for people who are not accountable and are a danger to others, and you'll be released when you're not a danger to others anymore. (Shorter sentence: say you're supposed to get 10 years, but the judge says you're only 50% accountable, then you'll have to serve 5 years. Then to the clinic.)
Not accountable: to the clinic until you're not a danger anymore. ("Insanity defense")

The clinic doesn't have a predetermined stay lenght (although after 6 years, you're moved to the longstay) - you'll just stay until you're safe again. For some, that means they'll never leave. I think it's evaluated yearly for the first few years and then every two years.
This also means some people refuse to cooperate in any way with their evaluation, afraid they'll be sentenced to indeterminate clinic time. For example - if you do something that might get you 4 years and you'll be declared not accountable (I think you US lot call it insane) you can be moved to the clinic instead, but you might have to stay there 10 years.

So in my country people 'psychotic murderers' aren't sent to a regular mental hospital, but to a clinic that houses only other mentally ill criminals.
If you commit a crime that would get you less than 4 years, and you're mentally ill, you'll generally not be sent to the clinic unless it's a specific crime (I think stalking is one of them, and a few others). Maybe then you'd be sent to a regular locked ward - not sure, I'm no lawyer.

In the specific case you mentioned, those girls were only 12 and were suffering from severe psychosis when they committed the crime. The best option for them WAS to be hospitalized so that they could get proper treatment for their mental illnesses which in turn would make them less likely to re-offend when realeased. I don't agree with trying children as adults or holding them to the same standards as adults. Their brains are already not fully developed and coupled with an undiagnosed, untreated MI the whole thing was a recipe for disaster.

I absolutely don't think that adult violent offenders should be placed with the general population. The state hospital here does that and as a result there have been at least 4 innocent people murdered. Not to mention that it furthers the stigma that people with MI are dangerous as a whole. I think there should be separate units, for the most part.

The slenderman case was extremely rare-that's why it got so much media attention. It's almost unheard of for someone so young to do such a thing and childhood onset schizophrenia is also very, very, very rare. I do see your point about there being no differentiation between those of us seeking help and dangerous criminals, but I think that was a poor example.

iPhone, the part that bothers me is being sentenced to at leaat 25 years mental hospital time. They might be 'all better' after 1 or 2 or 6 years (and able to re enter society as long as they take their meds, attend therapy - which they could be court-ordered to) and they'd have to stay for 25 anyway?

Well I'm sure that just like regular prison, they will be eligible for parole before the 25 years is up. In Georgia, it's after 7 years is served (for sentences over 21 years)...I don't know the exact stipulations for their state. The 25 years is a precaution on the behalf of both parties because an "indefinite" sentence could allow them to be kept longer (or forever) and a shorter sentence could mean they won't be fully recovered but they will have to let them go anyway.

Giving such a long sentence will allow them to be released (on parole) because they are actually better, not because they have to.

Objectively there is no problem with that.
The problem is the "good and evil" view on mental health.
Separating sections inside the mental health hospital would be a good choice.
Would you really want outlaws to be considered "evil" because they had to go to the mental health hospital because of a crime, which was probably caused by a mental illness? Probably not.

I'd much rather have people who have been convicted of a crime, who have MI, be sent to a hospital where they can receive treatment, than to a prison. The prisons already have enough MI prisoners in them.

Here in Canada, there are separate forensic secure facilities for people found not criminally responsible, due to MI. My psych hospital has a secure minimum security unit, for people who are getting ready to transition back into the community.

Discharge from the hospital does not mean absolute discharge. Most people are released under a conditional discharge with a community treatment order, meaning they must remain on their meds - sometimes take their meds supervised, or refrain from drugs and alcohol. CTO's are tailored to the individual's circumstances.

splitimage

Crazy ... just like what happened to me only I did not let the police in my house ... and they did not enter ... they need a warrant!

In the US criminal justice system, time served while incarcerated in a mental hospital can be much longer than what would have been the sentence without an insanity defence.

See: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/27/maga ... tence.html

I think in Canada it works about to be on average about the same either way. Also those deemed not criminally responsible and treated have lower recidivism rates than the rest of the inmate population.

The 25 years is likely to calm the public that no one is getting away with murder. It looks like the sentence requires 3 years before she can be let out for supervised release as part of her rehabilitation.

In principle I agree with the OP that a sentence to a mental hospital is problematic but sometimes there is no alternative. I would rather be in forensic hospital than in jail, but it is a tough place to be... much harder to cope with that a regular psych ward.

tecomsin,

I've heard that criticism that people are held longer in psychiatric facilities than they a jail sentence would be, particularly when the crimes are relatively light. But I don't have any statistics to back up or deny that claim.

splitimage

it was in the article i linked but i dont think there are comprehensive stats. My understanding is that it is a US issue and not something that happens in other countries.

In my country (Western Europe) it can be an issue, because if you are considered too insane to be held accountable, you'll go to the clinic until you are not a danger anymore. Whereas sane murder can get you up to 30 years (or life - which really means prison for the rest of your life - although I don't think that penalty is ever given anymore), with an average of just under 15 years, an insanity clinic 'sentence' can potentially last for the rest of your life.
A result is that some criminals refuse to comply with a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation (the court can force you to turn up, but they can't make you talk to the doctor), because they prefer the definite prison sentence. Especially if it isn't expected to be a very long sentence.

They try to make the intramural part of the clinic stay less than 6 years - if you are fit to leave after 1 year, you'll leave after 1, and if you are fit to leave after 8, you'll spend the last 2 years in the longstay. Also, the intramural part isn't usually administered if you commit a crime which has a maximum sentence of less than 6 years (there are exceptions, stalking is one) no matter if you were insane. You might have forced outpatient treatment, therapy, medication, a stay in a normal or normal forensic clinic (basically the forensic ward of a mental hospital, but those stays are usually much shorter and it's less prison-like) though. Or restrictions (no drinking, curfew, whatever necessary) or moving to a halfway house.

Or maybe indefinite intramural time can't be given after a less-than-6-years sentence.. just definite, short-term. Not sure, I am no lawyer.

Basically - prison is to punish, and insanity clinics are to lap you up until you are not significantly more likely to commit a crime than the average person. And that can take longer than the maximum sentence for your crime, and if they can't fix you to that point, there is a possibility of you never leaving.

Such a morbid subject ... can't wait till I'm commited

be careful what you wish for. I can say that staying in a forensic unit, it was a maximum security facility and would qualify as a prison rather than a 'hospital',

for a month, with men and women mixed together, some violent criminals who were being evaluated and me, who was psychotic and driven into a paranoid fear of the police, after they had been banging on my door regularly for months,

well I didn't stop for police once when driving and that landed me a month in a 'forensic unit'. It's true by then I was psychotic but I never broke the law while psychotic before.

I found there is a very thin line in my behavior and now I do have to remember to always obey the law. After my last break with reality I lost that inhibition, which is really quite scary.

I'm scared of who I was, who I can be and what happened to me. It was a step up from prison but not a place to recover from psychotic episode.

I feel sorry for all the mentally ill people warehoused in jail instead of getting treated.

this is why we have a stigma surrounding us. I think this is wrong for everyone to lumped up into one category when we are different and suffer differently

Congrats. You can be the first to go, then, when DHS starts locking people up for mental illness because they are a danger to the public (and yes, they've already looked into it). Your answer strikes me as callous and flippant, and as one who has done a lot of time for a crime committed as a child, I find it offensive. The criminal mental facilities in Wisconsin are nothing but prisons, period. They are often staffed by psychology and psychiatry rejects who either lost their license in other states to practice, or should have. They are also staffed by ex-probation agents (and guess what? You don't need any training to be one! Become a PO, then retire and become a de facto sociologist, or "treatment facilitator" with none of the training and all the power to lock people away due to your own bias and prejudices), and often very crappy ones at that.

Mark Twain was right. "If you want to see the dregs of society, stand outside the gates of the local jail at the changing of the guard."

Wisconsin has three state-run mental hospitals. Sand Ridge (for sex offenders, often who are children themselves), Mendota (looks like the hospital from One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, and WRC (Wisconsin Resource Center) next to Dodge and Waupun. They hire only the "best," by which I mean sociologists who try to facilitate therapy groups with no training in psychology (and one, a Dr. Spotz, was barred from practicing in New Jersey for unethical behavior, but was apparently professional enough for treating mentally ill and often unstable inmates).

When you privatize prisons, you get CCA's abuses. What the hell do you think is going to happen when the prison industry privatizes "hospitals" to treat mentally ill inmates? Oh, look, a new way to lock people up using civil commitment instead of criminal statutes. And here's the best part: the SSA shares information openly with DHS, and the DHS shares it with law enforcement, so if law enforcement decides they don't like you (like if you happen to piss off a cop who is friends with a DA), it's off to the farm with you after they hold a kangaroo trial with a public pretender who doesn't give a crap about your inalienable rights.

Wisconsin is very much a prison-industry state, with a monopolistic control over the companies allowed to sell basic things to prisoners. JL Marcus is owned by the wife of an ex-governor (it was either them or Keefe, I forget which). Tell me that's not a conflict of interest. And let's not forget that the guard union was so powerful in Wisconsin that the current governor had to essentially break their backs by busting up the union. And here's something that never made into the media, but I heard straight from the horse's mouth (a guard): It was part of their union rules that prison administrative officials could not randomly UA guards, with the result that guards routinely came in drunk, or high, and then took out their own mess on inmates, causing all kinds of security issues. Let's not forget Officer Hall, who got busted in Racine Correctional Institution smuggling in pounds of pot, and even had jars labeled "inmates." Or how about in Waupun, where a guard was fired upward to a desk job in Madison after the feds busted him stealing garbage bags full of inmate mail, and cashing the checks, and keeping the money that family would send in to their loved ones. Not to mention the garage full of stolen inmate property like tv's, shoes, radios, guitars, typewriters, fans, and more.

That is the reality the public doesn't see. It's not politically expedient to treat prisoners humanely.

I have one thing to say about that:

"The level of civilization within a society can be judged by the way they treat their prisoners." --Doestoyevsky