State Prepares to Free 50 Mentally Ill Inmates

About 50 mentally ill and violent offenders who were held in a state hospital under a law struck down by the California Supreme Court this week will soon very likely be released from confinement, officials said Friday.

But special efforts will be made to ensure that those who are freed remain under intensive supervision while on parole, the authorities said.

“We’re going to be keeping a very strict eye on these individuals and make sure they take their medication and report as directed to a hospital on an outpatient basis,” said Christine May, an assistant director for the state Department of Corrections.

Officials plan to make new psychiatric evaluations immediately of the 147 offenders now confined at Atascadero state hospital under a now-invalidated $4-million-a-year program to determine which of them could be held under other laws as dangerous or gravely disabled.

Authorities said it would be at least a week or two before any psychiatric evaluations are completed and any offenders are released.

While officials said attempts would be made to keep about two-thirds of the offenders in custody, they acknowledged that finding proof to justify further confinement will not be easy because in most cases, the state will have to cite acts or threats that took place in prison or in the hospital.

Some offenders already have been deemed ready for release after treatment under the program and will be permitted to leave the hospital soon, said David B. Hamilton, assistant to the executive director at Atascadero.

On Thursday, the state Supreme Court let stand an appellate court decision that overturned a 1985 law allowing involuntary commitment of mentally ill violent offenders at the end of their prison terms.

A state Court of Appeal in Ventura ruled last October that the law was unconstitutional because it did not require proof of an offender’s dangerousness or grave disability--a requirement found in other statutes providing for involuntary confinement for members of the general population.

The high court’s action, taken in a brief order with no dissents, brought an abrupt end to a controversial program that was designed originally to confine up to 500 mentally disturbed offenders annually who otherwise would be on the streets.

According to a report by the state auditor general, relatively few offenders have remained confined under the program. The report said that of nearly 74,000 inmates paroled from state prisons in an 18-month period ending in December, 1987, only 58 offenders were ordered to remain confined in a hospital.

Under procedures described by officials Friday, confined offenders who authorities believe are currently dangerous or gravely disabled would face continued confinement, either under statutes providing for civil commitment by a court or under parole revocation procedures before the state Board of Prison Terms.

In either case, authorities would have to show an offender was a danger to himself or others or was unable to provide food, clothing and shelter for himself.

Those who are released will be subject to the state’s highest degree of parole supervision, according to May of the Department of Corrections.

While the normal caseload for a parole agent is 52 cases, offenders released from the now-invalidated program will be under the supervision of an agent with only 12 cases, she said.

Also, insofar as possible, released offenders will be sent to a “protected environment,” such as the home of a relative or a board-and-care facility, May said. “We’ll be looking for someplace where we know an offender will be getting more than just cursory attention,” she said.

On another front, lawyers said that offenders who already had brought legal challenges to their confinement under the law were likely to win release in the courts.

Los Angeles County Deputy Public Defender John Hamilton Scott noted that a few offenders already had won tests of their confinement in jury trials called for under the law. Others, whose cases are pending, will probably obtain release through court orders in the wake of the high court action, he said.

Scott said it came as little surprise that the high court would refuse to uphold a law that was widely viewed by critics as unconstitutional. He added, however, that despite the court’s action, it was likely that a “fair number” of offenders would be found dangerous and thus remain confined.

The now-invalidated law drew support from legislators who were concerned about the release of offenders whose mental states caused or contributed to violent crimes and who were still mentally disturbed at the end of their prison terms.