ILNews

Legal process on mental illness isn't yet where it should be

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


Courts nationally began in the mid-1990s to focus on mental illness and how the judiciary could fine-tune what it does to better address that issue.

But many within the Hoosier legal community say that the criminal justice system hasn't gone far enough in the past decade, and both the courts and society are a long way from where they need to be on addressing mental illness.

The inadequacy of the legal process to cope with mental-health issues has come up as recently as March during a statewide summit by the National Alliance on Mental Illness Indiana, but it's a theme echoed throughout the years by lawmakers trying to tackle the problem, judges trying to handle it in the trenches, and corrections officials combating the consequences once people are behind bars.

In ruling on a mental competency case last year, Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Paul Mathias wrote that he believes "our current criminal justice procedures are inadequate to consider and resolve issues presented by defendants suffering from long-term or permanent mental illness."

That case involved a man who appealed a Marion Superior judge's denial of his motion to dismiss an attempted murder and aggravated battery charges against him after a determination that he was incompetent to stand trial. The man had been committed to the Indiana Department of Mental Health after that finding, and the record later delved into his past diagnosis of receptive expressive language disorder resulting from a traumatic brain injury as a child. Doctors determined he wouldn't regain competency anytime soon, civil commitment proceedings began, and Ahmed Habibzadah moved to have the charges dismissed. Marion Superior Judge Tanya Walton Pratt determined the court didn't have the authority to dismiss those charges and that it would be premature to do so because of a possibility Habibzadah might someday become competent.

The appellate court unanimously affirmed Judge Pratt's decision, but Judge Mathias wrote separately to expand on the legal system's handling of defendant mental-health issues.

"I write separately to highlight the issues raised in this case regarding the dismissal of charges against a defendant who has been civilly committed because he is mentally incompetent to stand trial," the judge wrote. "Our criminal justice system has a mechanism to deal with temporary incompetence as it pertains to criminal culpability, or scienter, but fails miserably when faced with the likely long-term or permanent mental illness of a criminal defendant."

The appellate case highlighted an issue confronted regularly by the entire legal system inside and outside the courtroom, one that has spawned legislative reforms and specialized courts to better address those with mental-health needs.

About two dozen attorneys attended the recent NAMI summit, said Kellie Meyer, criminal justice director. Feedback showed attendees felt informed about how misaligned the mental-health focus is within the criminal justice system, and that there's still much to be done to get vulnerable people the help they need.

"We're not just putting criminals out there but are helping people who need those services instead of prison," she said.

The U.S. Department of Justice estimates that more than 330,000 of the nation's 2.2 million inmates are mentally ill, meaning that corrections officials must deal with those issues after the legal system puts individuals behind bars. Nationally, mental-health courts have been used since the mid '90s. Marion County is believed to have established the first, with the 1996 creation of the Psychiatric Assertive Identification Referral/Response (PAIR) program that used a pretrial, post-booked diversion system for mentally ill offenders. Others followed suit with more formal specialized courts, and the National Center for State Courts reports that there are dozens across the country.

Indiana has about six programs, though some others have more informal programs in place or are being developed. The state doesn't yet certify those as it does with other problem-solving courts, but that changes July 1 because of a new law approved by the Indiana General Assembly this year. It allows for the expansion of these problem-solving courts, and allows the state judiciary to certify courts specializing in mental-health issues in the same way it currently does with drug and re-entry courts.

Clark Superior Judge Dan Moore operates a mental-health court and hopes to work more with police in the pretrial process about critical response in committing those with mental-health issues for 24 hours after the initial detention period finishes.

"We need to be able to better develop programs and ID mental-health patients police encounter better than we do now," he said. "We're trying to cut some new ground here because sometimes this isn't a criminal issue. Unfortunately, we're not there yet."

Allen Superior Judge David Avery has been hosting a more informal program that allows for involuntary civil commitments for mentally ill defendants who aren't able to get the needed help through drug and re-entry courts. The court works with the mental health-focused PARK Center and every Monday afternoon conducts hearings about ongoing issues, counseling, medication being taken, or other therapeutic necessities, Judge Avery said. Through the years, some misdemeanor defendants have seen other courts include the mental-health evaluations as part of a sentence, mandating that they get evaluated by the PARK Center and then are brought into Judge Avery's court for a status hearing.

"Instead of using jail as a psych ward, we've done this and have been successful in keeping them within the treatment plans while the offense or sentence hangs over them," the judge said. "A high percentage of these individuals in our criminal justice system have mental-health issues, and I'm not sure all can be dealt with in mental-health courts or these specific settings. Some might still need to be incarcerated. But at least we have the option to try something that might work."

In the past 15 years, the state has also taken significant steps in improving the legal process for defendants with mental-health concerns. The late Sen. Anita Bowser, D-Michigan City, was a champion for the mentally ill and through the years had been a part of changes on this front. In recent years, she'd pushed to limit the death penalty in Indiana for those who are mentally ill. While that didn't materialize before her death in March 2007, her colleagues formed a commission in her honor to study the issue. Discussions are still ongoing about the definition of "mentally ill" for court purposes.

Despite those efforts and ongoing discussions and changes, those attending the recent summit - and Judge Mathias' point in the Habibzadah ruling - say that despite the progress we aren't yet where we need to be.

"Our criminal justice system needs an earlier and intervening procedure to determine competency retroactively to the time of the alleged crime. Perhaps we as a society need to consider the concept of a defendant being unchargeable because of mental illness under Indiana Code section 35-41-3-6, and not just guilty but mentally ill under Indiana Code section 35-36-2-1," the judge wrote. "In either case, the commitment proceedings provided for in Indiana Code 35-36-2-4 would both protect society and best care for the defendant involved."

Whether such a result can be achieved through the Indiana Supreme Court rulemaking process or the Indiana General Assembly's legislative process, Judge Mathias said it's "time for the truly, longterm, incompetent criminal defendants to have an earlier recognition of their illnesses long before a case might get to trial or even appeal.

"Such a procedure convened soon after arrest, rather than years later when stale evidence and dim or non-existent memories are all that are left over, or never, would best serve society and the defendant," he wrote.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  2. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  3. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  4. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

  5. "...not those committed in the heat of an argument." If I ever see a man physically abusing a woman or a child and I'm close enough to intercede I will not ask him why he is abusing her/him. I will give him a split second to cease his attack and put his hands in the air while I call the police. If he continues, I will still call the police but to report, "Man down with a gunshot wound,"instead.

ADVERTISEMENT