When It Comes to Freeing Allaway, There’s No Margin for Error

We tend to talk about Edward Allaway in the abstract, as if his case were the subject of a head-scratching mental exercise.

Release him? Is he sane? Is he dangerous?

We talk about his case that way because most of us don’t know anyone who’s mentally ill.

And so Allaway becomes a symbol.

Thumbs up or thumbs down?

What we tend to forget is that a real person--namely, Edward Allaway--at one moment in his life took a rifle to Cal State Fullerton, parked outside the campus library, walked in and killed seven other real people.

His psychotic episode in July 1976 lasted five minutes, according to initial news accounts.

Those five minutes are being debated 25 years later, because Allaway has asked to be let out of a state hospital.

A team of mental health experts has declared him sane and recommended his release--an announcement that sparked outcries from some in Orange County who remember his rampage a quarter-century ago.

The furor may have been muted in recent days. Allaway’s attorney, bowing to public opposition, now says he favors keeping his client in a state hospital for several more years but allowing him periodic, supervised visits outside the gates.

Even that, no doubt, will anger many.

Many of those may not know a whole lot about mental illness. Nor will many advocating his release.

What jumps out at me in the swirling debate is how little stock we put in the opinion of professionals. After all, these aren’t professional bowlers who say Allaway should be released; they’re professionals in the mental health field.

One of them, Martha Rogers, a psychologist who recommended his release--but only under close supervision--had opposed it 14 years earlier.

However, something in Rogers’ report, made public two months ago, jumped out at me. “We all have as the highest priority to maintain the safety of the community,” she wrote. “We all realize there is no statistical database . . . which can predict his level of future risk. But as best we can, the predicted risk is estimated as low.”

Is that the strongest statement she can make?

When talking about someone who killed seven people, shouldn’t we have a higher degree of certainty?

Something Allaway said to Rogers also was quoted in press accounts: “I doubt I would get to that stage [again],” he reportedly said, “because I would recognize the problem.”

He doubts he’d get to that stage again? I’m not trying to pick semantical nits, but that isn’t the most reassuring comment I’ve ever read from a man who once took a rifle to campus.

In 1986, only a decade after the shooting, Allaway claimed he’d regained his sanity.

I’m torn on Allaway, but my opinion doesn’t matter. People with more informed opinions wrestle with cases like this.

Donna Pollard volunteers for the Orange County chapter of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill and has come to know about mental illness from her son’s bout with it.

A 72-year-old retired teacher, Pollard laments that sensational cases like Allaway’s command attention while other people struggle and cope with mental illness every day.

She agreed to discuss the Allaway controversy but stressed she was speaking for herself and not the organization.

“I know the majority of these people [with mental illnesses] are not violent,” she says. “But one of the indicators as to whether they will be violent or not is previous violent behavior, so we need to pay attention to that previous violent behavior.”

Pollard says she assumes Allaway would need lifelong treatment. In response to my question, she first says she isn’t automatically opposed to releasing killers judged to be insane who later regain sanity.

However, she quickly concedes the inherent difficulty in assessing such situations.

“He was ill and does deserve to be in a hospital rather than prison,” she says. “But he doesn’t deserve to be in society.”

I have no desire to pass judgment on Allaway’s desire for freedom. But I do beg of the experts: If you ever release him, be sure you’re right.

*

Dana Parsons’ column appears Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays. Readers may reach Parsons by calling (714) 966-7821; by writing to him at The Times’ Orange County edition, 1375 Sunflower Ave., Costa Mesa, CA 92626; or by e-mail at dana.parsons@latimes.com.