The Problem of Keeping Dangerous Men in Prison

Walter L. Barkdull’s excellent analysis (Editorial Pages, April 29) of the public’s frustration in keeping “dangerous” felons imprisoned deals only with the tip of the iceberg.

Of the 65,000 prisoners in the custody of the California Department of Corrections, approximately 10%, or 6,500, are classified as having a mental illness. This large number results from the inadequacy of mental health treatment programs, both state and local. The mentally ill are often jailed or imprisoned as nuisances in lieu of treatment.

Further, since determinate sentencing began, very few defendants plead not guilty by reason of insanity, with its risk of lifetime extension.

The mentally disordered offenders legislation of 1985, effective July 1, 1986, has not had a substantial impact in limiting release of felons who are in danger of reoffending.

The statute (Penal Code Section 2962) is narrowly drafted and similarly interpreted by the Board of Prison Terms. It provides in essence that a prison inmate--(1) who has a severe mental disorder that is not in remission; and (2) the mental disorder was a factor in the crime that brought the person to prison; and (3) the person has received treatment for at least 90 days during his last year in prison; and (4) the committing offense involved force or violence or caused serious bodily injury; and (5) the person has been evaluated by at least three psychiatrists and psychologists to verify items 1 through 3--can be held for treatment in lieu of being paroled to the community. Like the defendant, the parolee can now be retained for extended treatment, even for the rest of his life. Nowhere does the word “dangerous” appear in the law.

All male prisoners are screened at Atascadero State Hospital. In the first 10 months of the program, only 60 potential parolees have been evaluated and placed in the pipeline for processing. The statute provides for review by jury trial in the Superior Court.

Due to hospital location, all of these cases come to the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court. To date, 19 cases have been filed in court, nine have been tried, three to juries. The rest await trial. With one exception, all of the persons have been denied release by either court or jury.

It is my understanding that Lawrence Singleton, a parolee without a county, and the subject of much media attention, was screened and did not meet the criteria of the statute for retention.

Several legislative alternatives exist to deal with the submerged balance of the iceberg. They include (1) provision of adequate mental health treatment programs so that the mentally ill will avoid criminality and ultimate imprisonment; (2) amendment of the statute to exclude fewer prisoners; or (3) return of California to indeterminate sentencing.

The Legislature must decide this issue, maintaining a fine balance between community safety and the rights of the defendant if the determinate sentencing program is to survive.

WILLIAM R. FREDMAN

Judge, Superior Court

San Luis Obispo