Tag Archives: mental illness

Everyday Torture

Posted on by elizabeth
Reply

From John Buell:

In Portland Phoenix articles, Lance Tapley points out that about 35,000 U.S. citizens are held in solitary confinement at “Supermaxes” (including Maine’s). Many are subjected to torture in the form of beating, sleep deprivation and mental abuse that rival practices at Guantanamo, according to Tapley.

Torture’s political invisibility is remarkable given its counterproductive consequences. Tapley points out that the torture of Supermax prisoners, most of whom are mentally ill, leads to high rates of recidivism and poses great public risk.

Frank Rich, commenting on [Jane] Mayer, suggests: “torture may well be enabling future attacks… false confessions and [an] avalanche of misinformation since 9-11… compromised prosecutions, allowed other culprits to escape and sent the American military on wild-goose chases.”

Some Americans do oppose torture, but even many who are opposed won’t acknowledge that “we” torture individuals not privy to secret bomb information. For example, prison authorities, major media and political leaders have not challenged Tapley’s specific factual assertions. Nonetheless, none have acted on his findings. Many national leaders even engage in tortuous redefinitions of torture.

These responses may have deep origins. Our world now presents shrinking employment options, rapid changes in neighborhoods and complex interdependence. Social turmoil leads many Americans, steeped in traditional notions of the U.S. as “a city upon a hill” in possession of unique truth, to embrace a problematic conviction: individuals whose differences in religion, lifestyle or ethnicity pose no direct threat really are dangerous.

The world is seen as irrevocably divided between a virtuous “us” and a dangerous “them.” We would never torture or would do so only for overwhelming reasons. When victims of our torture attack or murder us, their actions merely confirm our conviction that they are “basically evil.”

Greater equality and adequate security might blunt xenophobic responses to economic crisis. Nonetheless, especially in a world becoming ever more multicultural, achieving progressive reforms is unlikely without also challenging some prevalent forms of fundamentalism. These dogmatic and exclusionary creeds blind us to the limits of our own intelligence, deny opportunities for full self-development, and preclude social justice movements across racial and religious lines.

Read the whole thing here

Harper and Our Prisons

Posted on by elizabeth
3

The social costs of the Harper government’s law and order shite, argghhh:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government has increased the “mandatory minimum” sentences judges must impose for people convicted of gun-related crimes. A proposed bill does the same for those convicted of drug crimes, including mandatory jail time for anyone caught with just one marijuana plant. And it plans to toughen laws against young offenders.

Experts denounce the measures as American-style justice, where tougher mandatory minimum sentences have led to astronomical prison costs and the highest incarceration rate in the developed world, with little or no reduction in crime.

The new laws resonate with Canadians looking for quick fixes. But few consider their likely targets: The poor, the homeless, the poorly educated, the mentally ill, the unemployed and those addicted to drugs or alcohol.

Indeed, statistics seem to back Elliott’s description of a society that criminalizes its troubled citizens:

  • More than 70 per cent of those who enter prisons have not completed high school.
  • 70 per cent of offenders entering prisons have unstable job histories.
  • Four of every five arrive with serious substance abuse problems.
  • 12 per cent of men and 26 per cent of women in prisons suffer serious mental health problems.
  • A Toronto study of 300 homeless adults found 73 per cent of men had been arrested and 49 per cent of them incarcerated at least once. Twelve per cent of women had served time.
  • Two out of three in the youth justice system have two or more diagnosed mental health disorders.
  • Federal and provincial data obtained by the Star through freedom of information requests indicates that GTA neighbourhoods with the highest levels of incarceration are those with lower incomes, higher unemployment, more single-family households and lower education.

Despite the statistics, talk of tackling the root causes of crime is sometimes dismissed as being soft on criminals. Harper recently denounced the criminal justice system as one that has “coddled criminals” for decades.

The Tory measures come as the overall crime rate hits a 25-year low. It indicates, experts say, that the decision to increase the country’s incarceration rate is strictly political, one that has more to do with perceived electoral benefits than crime prevention.

Craig Jones, director of the John Howard Society, believes it smacks of an “Old Testament, eye-for-an-eye ethic,” which sees crime as the moral failure of individuals rather than the collective responsibility of societies that marginalize its less-advantaged citizens.

Rather than fund policies that improve equal opportunity – supposedly a cherished Canadian value – the government will be locking up more of those it has let fall through the cracks, Jones argues.

“From the standpoint of social justice, it’s a bad day in Canada,” says Jones, whose group serves offenders in and out of prisons.

Attacking root causes doesn’t have to be expensive, especially if savings from reduced incarceration are reinvested in troubled neighbourhoods. With crime costing an estimated $70 billion annually, $1.8 billion of it for prisons, cost-benefit analyses have repeatedly shown such investments would save many more billions in the long run.

The debate, experts say, is not about being tough or soft on crime. It’s about what works. What doesn’t is spending millions more locking people up.

[…]

… studies have consistently shown that early childhood development programs can cut future anti-social or criminal behaviour by half. In June, Canada’s chief public health officer, Dr. David Butler-Jones, reported that every dollar invested in early years saves $9 in future spending on health, welfare and justice systems.

But a 2006 study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development ranked Canada dead last among 14 industrialized countries on investment in early childhood education and care. We spend 0.25 per cent of GDP compared to Denmark’s 2 per cent, Sweden’s 1.7 per cent and Norway’s 1.5 per cent. Even the U.S., with almost 0.5 per cent, spends nearly twice what Canada does.

[…]

A Toronto Star analysis of federal and provincial sentencing data revealed last week that 10 postal areas in Toronto will each cost taxpayers more than $12 million in incarceration costs by the time their residents are released from provincial and federal jails. The most expensive, M8V in Mimico, figures to cost taxpayers more than $25 million.

A map of the highest rates of incarceration indicate that offenders often come from Toronto’s most troubled and neglected neighbourhoods, such as Kingston-Galloway, Jane-Finch and Jamestown.

In the U.S., the Justice Mapping Center has described incarceration as an expensive and lazy way of responding to poverty. It persuaded several state governments to release low-risk inmates and provide alternatives to prison for those who violate minor release conditions. The money saved from incarceration is given directly to the communities the offenders come from.

That poverty fuels crime won’t surprise many. Yet anti-poverty advocates accuse Canadian governments of inexcusable inaction.

Canada’s child poverty rate ranks us 19th among 26 developed countries. Despite economic growth since the mid-90s, 13 per cent of Canadian children – 872,000 people – live below the StatsCan low-income cut-off. That’s the same rate as in 1989, the year the House of Commons unanimously vowed to eradicate child poverty by the year 2000.

[…]

Canadian prisons are more crowded, and inmates more dangerous and more wracked with mental illnesses and addictions. Yet the number getting rehabilitation programs has dropped significantly. Many come out worse off than when they went in.

Core rehab programs, such as anger management courses, only account for about two per cent – $37 million – of Correctional Service of Canada’s budget.

Nor are offenders getting useful job skills while locked up, according to a federally appointed panel that reviewed the prison system last year. Poorly rehabilitated and poorly trained, many released offenders end up homeless, too.

At least 40 per cent are convicted of a new offence within two years of being released. Needed immediately are more resources for rehab and job training in prison, and for housing on the outside.

With aboriginal Canadians, advocates say their scandalous overrepresentation in prisons would drop significantly if courts simply applied the law. (Aboriginals make up about 19 per cent of the prison population, but only 3.8 per cent of Canada’s.)

The Criminal Code states that reasonable alternatives to prison “should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders.”

In many cases, this should result in conditional sentences that place native offenders in traditional forms of “restorative” justice, including healing circles, rehabilitation programs and making amends to victims, says Jonathan Rudin, of Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto. But it rarely happens.

[…]

There are noteworthy attempts to tackle the root causes of crime in Canada, most struggling to find the funds to match their long-term ambitions.

In some cases, such as Toronto’s action plans for 13 “priority” neighbourhoods, local agencies juggle short-term funding that abruptly ends programs after barely a year.

In others, such as the Waterloo Region Community Safety and Crime Prevention Council, local officials have toiled without a penny of provincial or federal money.

“We have done this work often in isolation, if not opposition, to other orders of government,” says Waterloo’s crime prevention director, Christiane Sadeler, whose $450,000-a-year budget has come solely from the regional government since 1995.

Sadeler’s 36-member council meets once a month. It includes local police, school boards, housing agencies, groups providing an array of social services and community representatives.

They try to educate the public and governments about the social factors fostering crime, co-ordinate strategies to tackle those causes and make sure there aren’t gaps in the services needed.

A current priority stems from the fact that more than half of crimes in the region are linked to substance abuse. But waiting lists for rehab programs are “ridiculously” long, Sadeler says.

Children suffering from mental health disorders anywhere in Ontario are also largely out of luck, says Judy Finlay, Ontario’s Chief Advocate of the Office of Child and Family Service Advocacy from 1991 until last August. They’re “congregating in the youth justice system” because there’s nowhere to send them for help.

A model similar to Waterloo’s was recently adopted by Alberta. Irvin Waller, founding director of the University of Ottawa’s Institute for the Prevention of Crime, calls it the “most progressive crime reduction program in the country.”

The province is investing $480 million in policing, early intervention, crime prevention and treatment programs. In May, Premier Ed Stelmach appointed a community safety secretariat, led by a “safety czar,” and staffed by officials from 10 ministries.

Waller, author of Less Law, More Order: The Truth About Reducing Crime, gives Ontario a far lower grade. Premier Dalton McGuinty gets credit for setting up the ongoing “Roots of youth violence” review panel. But overall, he has simply given more money to police, Waller says.

“We don’t have a plan,” he says, referring to a Canada-wide initiative to effectively reduce crime. “Until we do, we won’t succeed.”

Further argghhh, you should see the comments on this piece at The Star!  Or not.  Ackkkk, arrrrrgghhhhh!
And if you’re really into this prison shite and want some more, see this earlier post

Leprosy & Mental Illness

Posted on by elizabeth
1

An essay from a series on mental illness in The Globe & Mail:

‘In no other field, except perhaps leprosy,” a Canadian report on mental illness said 45 years ago, “has there been as much confusion, misdirection and discrimination against the patient as in mental illness … Down through the ages, [the mentally ill] have been estranged by society and cast out to wander in the wilderness. Mental illness, even today, is all too often considered a crime to be punished, a sin to be expiated, a possessing demon to be exorcised, a disgrace to be hushed up, a personality weakness to be deplored or a welfare problem to be handled as cheaply as possible.”

[…]

 … stigma is not just name-calling. It’s also “sticks and stones” that can have concrete consequences. According to a Scottish study, people with mental health problems reported experiencing more than twice as much harassment as the general population. The perpetrators were typically neighbours and teenagers. Almost all those surveyed said that the harassment had made their mental health worse. Almost one in three moved as a result.

People living with mental illness are also less likely to report any offence or crime committed against them, because they report that police are unsupportive. And if they do press charges, they often end up being branded “unreliable” witnesses in court.

British research confirms that 80 per cent of people with longer-term mental health problems are out of work. So poverty and small, fragile social networks add to their problems. In Canada, it is no better. Almost half of us believe that if someone at work was dealing with depression and missing work, they would be more likely to “get into trouble and maybe even fired.”

Current research has found that the public is generally better informed about mental illness than it was a few decades ago. Researchers at Columbia University report that there is greater awareness of mental illness and its biological underpinnings, as well as the availability and effectiveness of treatment.

The bad news is that, in lockstep, there has been a corresponding increase in stigma, discrimination and social distancing. Increasingly, the public is attaching stereotypes, such as “dangerous and incompetent,” to people with mental illnesses.

[…]

Perhaps the most shocking evidence of the deep-seatedness of stigma is in a study by the Michigan Psychiatric Society, in which half of the psychiatrists surveyed said that they would treat themselves in secrecy rather than have mental illness recorded on their medical chart.

Drugs, Race, Crime, Science & Women

Posted on by elizabeth
6

At Health Beat, Maggie Mahar and Niko Karvounis discuss how a science-based view of the use of illegal substances could lead to more enlightened methods of dealing with related individual and social problems than that currently used in the US and increasingly, Canada: criminalization of those who buy, possess and use them:

… rather than engaging in yet another political argument about personal responsibility vs. society’s responsibility to help its poorest citizens, it might be helpful to take a look at what medical science has been learning about drug addiction over the past few decades.

Addiction Treatment: Science and Policy for the Twenty-first Century (Johns Hopkins U. Press, 2007) does just that, and in the process “highlights the amazing discord between scientific knowledge and public perception,” according to a review by Stanford University’s Dr. Alex Macario in the June 4th JAMA.

In this collection of short, incisive essays, the authors don’t always agree on specifics, but they do reach a consensus of sorts: the scientific community needs to educate the public about drug addiction—and our approach to treatment should be based on medical evidence rather than personal ideology.

Today, medical technology allows scientists to observe first-hand what happens inside the brain when it is, in the words of William R. Miller, a psychiatrist at the University of New Mexico, “hijacked by drugs.” Thanks to brain imaging, for example, we know that regular drug use disrupts the frontal cortex, which regulates cognitive activities like decision-making, planning, and memory. In other words, drugs affect an individual’s capacity to make the choices that the Reaganites insist addicts “should” be able to make (Just Say No!). Undoubtedly the drug user could have said “no” the very first time he let desire over-ride good judgment. But after that, Miller notes, “neuroadaptation involves biological changes in response to drug use that increase the likelihood of repetition and escalation, undermining the person’s capacity for volitional control.”  Recent studies have even shown that drug addiction changes our brains at the genetic level, influencing how our DNA is translated into enzymes and proteins.

As a result of this new information, experts are increasingly incorporating the recognition that addiction is, in part, a “brain disease” into their treatment recommendations. This perspective has even made headway in the halls of power. Last year Congress introduced the Recognizing Addiction as a Disease Act, which would institutionalize the disease model by changing into the name of the National Institute on Drug Abuse to the National Institute on Diseases of Addiction and change the name of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism to the National Institute on Alcohol Disorders and Health.

The text of the act embraces the disease model, noting that “the pejorative term ‘abuse’ used in connection with diseases of addiction has the adverse effect of increasing social stigma and personal shame, both of which are so often barriers to an individual’s decision to seek treatment.”

All extremely interesting and helpful.  But since we are still arguing the merits of scientific theories of evolution versus faith-based adherence to the myth of creation by a divine deity, I’m afraid it may take too many hundred years to convince people that the possession and use of illegal drugs is a medical rather than moral problem.  Much as it might be more interesting and less troublesome to escape to the world of science, it’s just not a good idea to try to de-politicize a highly political problem.  I’m not denigrating the science.  It’s important.  It provides informative ammunition.  It just won’t ever be a sufficient replacement for organized action on political grounds.  The brain medicine that leads to good rehab practices is only available to rich people or those with good private health insurance anyway.  Even in Canada.  Yes it is!

Recently, certain Canadian laws with respect to drug possession and trafficking were struck down as unconstitutional by the B.C. Supreme Court.  InSite is a safe-injection site in Vancouver’s downtown east side.  It’s been in operation since 2003 under an exemption from the drug laws, granted by the Federal government of Liberal P.M. Paul Martin.  The exemption was due to expire on June 30th of this year and it was pretty clear that Health Minister Tony Clement wasn’t going to extend it, so Insite, along with several habitual drug users, challenged the drug prohibition laws in the courts.

In May, Justice Ian Pitfield found that sections of Canada’s drug laws are inconsistent with section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

Pitfield says in his ruling that denying access to the site ignores the illness of addiction.

“While there is nothing to be said in favour of the injection of controlled substances that leads to addiction, there is much to be said against denying addicts health care services that will ameliorate the effects of their condition,” he wrote.

“I cannot agree with the submission that an addict must feed his addiction in an unsafe environment when a safe environment that may lead to rehabilitation is the alternative.”

Sometimes, logic does creep in to judicial decision making.

Pitfield’s decision gives the Feds till June 20, 2009 to bring the law into accord with constitutional principles of fundamental justice.  Neil Boyd, a criminologist at Simon Fraser University, points out that the decision is in line with the trend toward understanding the use of addictive drugs as a health problem rather than a problem for criminal law.  However, he pointed out on the day of the decision that it wasn’t likely the end of the story, as several levels of appeal were and are still available to the Feds.

Sure enough, a day later, our illustrious Health Minister indicated Ottawa’s intention to appeal Pitfield’s decision.  Of course. 

“We have been offering drug maintenance rather than drug treatment,” said Clement. “We have been sending a message [to addicts] that says we have given up on them, and that we do not expect them to recover.”
Clement said that Insite only saves about one life per year, and that up to 97 percent of injections occur outside of Insite. But he refused to answer whether or not the research he was presenting had been peer-reviewed.
Thomas Kerr, a research scientist at the British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, and the chief researcher for Insite, has actually conducted a series of peer-reviewed studies on supervised injection sites.
In his studies, Kerr concluded that Insite does in fact lead to a reduction of syringe sharing and the number of overdoses resulting in deaths.
“How many peer-reviewed papers does the government need before they believe us?” said Donald MacPherson, the City of Vancouver’s drug policy coordinator.
“The only negative result we’ve found from these safe injections sites is that there aren’t enough of them to really make a big impact.”
Clement argued that a decision about harm reduction should be based on public policy, and referred to the scientific evidence around the facility as “mixed.”
He said that he instead wanted to focus government spending on treatment and prevention programs, as well as increasing the number of beds available to sex workers in Vancouver’s downtown eastside.
“Injection drug users are not dying — there is still hope for them,” said Clement. “Even if they fail treatment the first time, we can help them to get up and try again.”
Many MPs were frustrated with the fact that Clement did not seem to understand the importance of harm reduction programs for drug addicts.
Few drug addicts will move to abstinence overnight, they argued. This is why harm reduction programs are essential in terms of getting those addicts in the door first, and then gradually moving them towards treatment.
“To have low threshold programs is a critical policy, and I don’t know why you don’t get that,” said NDP MP Libby Davies, voicing her frustration towards Clement.
“It must be because of an ideological reason that you can’t move on,” she said. “Practically everyone else on this committee is on board with [Insite] except for you.”

“You are the only barrier to Insite’s continuation.”

 Since the best available information, and there’s plenty of it, tells us that putting people in prison doesn’t cure addiction and hasn’t put an end to the purchase and sale of banned drugs, what could the problem be?  Is Stephen Harper just an incredible blockhead?  Are the leaders of the free world in the US just as thick?  We like to think so sometimes.  I think not.

In order to understand these hyper-conservative strategies, we have to look at who is hurt by them, and who benefits.

The US has managed to imprison 65% of the male African American population of the country.  I would venture to guess that these men also tend to reside in the lowest of socio-economic brackets, since middle-class and wealthy people are criminalized at a much lower rate.  The numbers of female African Americans in prison, while smaller by 15% than males, is the fastest growing prison population.

In Canada, rates of incarceration are actually falling.  Except among women, and Aboriginal peoples generally.  Indigenous people  represent

  • 3% of the total canadian adult population – (2001 Census)
  • 22% of admissions to provincial/territorial sentenced custody
  • 17% of admissions to federal prisons
  • 21% of male prisoner population
  • 30% of female prisoner population

 

  60% of all those incarcerated in Canada are on remand.  This is a direct result of “law and order” agitation about criminals on the loose and a growing urge among judges, who have been much critisized, to err on the side of caution when dealing with accused (and assumed innocent) people awaiting trial.  There is a high correlation between custodial remand and conviction.  So, the more people imprisoned on remand, the more people convicted.  Remand may not be a direct cause, but it would be disingenuous to say that it has no effect.  Release on bail isn’t necessarily related to the seriousness of the offence.  Rather, to the likelihood that the accused person can be depended upon to return to court for trial.  Having a home, a job, a secure place in a community and mental wellness contribute to the view of an accused’s reliability.  As does freedom from drug or alcohol abuse.

The rate of growth in Canada’s imprisonment rates will also be affected by mandatory sentences that have been introduced for certain criminal offences, another result of that “law and order” agenda.  It is estimated that the sentenced population will increase by 1,000 prisoners per year as a direct result of mandatory sentencing.

Suicide rates in Canadian (and US) prisons are higher than in the general population.  But most people who die in prison die of acute and chronic health problems.  As in the US, many of the imprisoned suffer from a variety of mental illness, which makes them more likely to be held in segregation for long periods of time.  Especially women.  Which means, especially Aboriginal women.  African American women.  See?  We care.

Alchohol and substance abuse is very significantly related to crime in Aboriginal populations.  The stats are similar for Aboriginal crime in the US.  And for African Americans.  Do we know how much white collar crime is committed because of the cocaine or alcohol addled brains of managers and CEOs?  You tell me.  Does a love of single malt scotch contribute to tax evasion?  Does anyone care?

But we have a very hefty investment in the prison industry which, in America, has become the prison industrial complex.  We’re headed in the direction of privatization in prison “services” in Canada too.  Once we get that kind of investment in putting people in prison and keeping them there, it’s hard to take it away.  There’s a real commitment to keeping it going and growing.  There are jobs involved in an economy that is turning into a “service” economy.  There are corporate profits involved.  Stockholders – pensioners and everyday Jill and Joe investors.  Sometimes, the whole economy of rural areas and small towns is dependent on the prison economy.

Stacked against the economic arguments, conveniently buttressed by smug assumptions about the reasons for drug dependence, is the idea that we need to commit society, through our politicians, to solving problems related to the history of slavery, Jim Crow, systemic racism and economic inequality in the US; colonialism, genocide and the destruction of Aboriginal culture and custom in Canada.  It will take a concerted, organized, political effort to convince men like Harper and yes, even Obama, to embark upon that course.  Because the problems are long-standing, endemic and complex.  Collective acknowledgement of root causes and a profound commitment to equality is required; the collective will to begin a journey towards rehabilitation – the rehabilition of us all – and justice is required.

Brain science can give us many things.  But it can’t give us that.

Growing up in Prison

Posted on by elizabeth
1

Every now and again, the insanity of our penal system coupled with our disintegrating mental health care system claims a victim who stands out from the crowd for the overwhelming brutality exercised against her, unto death.  Such a woman is Ashley Smith, who committed suicide in a Canadian penitentiary, at the age of 19:

In effect, Canada punished Ashley Smith for her severe mental illness, and did not stop until she was dead.

Ashley Smith’s story is horrible and tragic.  Ashley Smith is one among many who have lost their lives due not just to our indifference, but also to the obsessive nature of our attention to the “law and order” agendas of powerful people like Stephen Harper.  Perhaps Ashley Smith’s case is getting this attention because of that combination of youth, mental illness and harsh imprisonment that characterizes her life.  If we removed the issuesof mental illness from her story, I hope we would be no less shocked.

If we were as ashamed as we ought to be about the story of Ashley Smith, we would insist upon a structural redefinition of our entire criminal imprisonment programme.

From CBC news:

Howard Sapers, the ombudsman for Canada’s federal prison system, made the comments as he handed over his final report to Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day.

Ashley Smith was found unconscious on Oct. 19, 2007, in her segregation cell at the Grand Valley Institution for Women in Kitchener, Ont., and later died in hospital of what police have described as “self-initiated asphyxiation.”

She had been serving a six-year, one-month sentence for offences committed as a young offender, including assault with a weapon and assaulting a peace officer, and would have been eligible for release in November.

‘Litany of serious failures,’ report says

Although Sapers said the report won’t be made public because of a continuing criminal investigation into the matter, he said it “discusses a litany of serious failures leading up to the tragic and, I believe, preventable death of Ms. Smith.”

“During her brief period of incarceration in the federal correctional system, this young woman did not receive the care, treatment and support that Canadians expect from the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC).

“This troubling case illustrates what can go wrong in federal corrections, and I urge both the minister and the commissioner to immediately implement my recommendations aimed at preventing similar deaths,” Sapers said.

Several investigations were conducted into Smith’s death, by Correctional Service Canada, local police, the federal prison ombudsman and the youth and child advocate in New Brunswick.

From 2003 to 2006, Smith had been incarcerated at provincial correctional facilities, the New Brunswick Youth Centre and the Saint John Regional Correctional Centre.

While at the youth centre, she was the subject of over 800 incident reports, over 500 institutional charges and 168 self-harm incidents. She spent nearly two-thirds of that time in segregation.

A year in segregation at penitentiary

She was transferred to a penitentiary at age 18, where she spent nearly a year in federal custody, in segregation the whole time.

Sapers said she did not receive a comprehensive psychological assessment while in federal custody and was not given adequate mental health services.

He also noted that a correctional officer was charged with assaulting Smith six months prior to her death.

“Ms. Smith’s journey through the courts, correctional and health-care systems started at age 13 and ended tragically at age 19. It is clear that none of these systems adequately responded to her needs.

“A concerted effort involving provincial/federal/territorial partners is required to ensure that cases like Ms. Smith’s do not happen again,” said Mr. Sapers.

Among his recommendations, Sapers said there needs to be improvement in responses to medical emergencies, use of force and segregation policies.

In a report released earlier this month, New Brunswick’s ombudsman called for significant changes in how the justice system handles young people with mental health problems following his probe into the death of Smith.

Bernard Richard said that his six-month review of the time Smith spent in the youth criminal justice system “tells a pretty tragic story” and highlights the need to change practices, particularly to divert youth with mental illnesses and behavioural problems away from the justice system by boosting services and foster care.

 

Moyers’ Memorial Day

Posted on by elizabeth
Reply

How to Honour US War Dead on Memorial Day Weekend

Bill Moyer’s Journal

From NYT:

In every way, this president has tried to hide the war. The press chafes because photos of flag-draped coffins are forbidden. But that’s nothing compared to how this administration is trying to turn the public’s eyes away from the pain of the people who feel it most directly, the soldiers and their families.

Suicide rates among returning veterans are soaring. And the administration’s response? Cover up the data. An e-mail titled “Shh!” surfaced earlier this month from Dr. Ira Katz, a top official at the V.A. The note indicated that far more veterans were trying to kill themselves than the administration had let on. It speaks for itself.

“Our suicide prevention coordinators are identifying about 1,000 suicide attempts per month among the veterans we see,” Katz wrote, in a note not meant for the general public. “Is this something we should address ourselves in some sort of release before someone stumbles upon it?”

Senator Patty Murray, a Democrat of Washington, who has made veterans affairs her specialty, was furious. “They lied about these numbers,” Murray told me. “It breaks my heart. Soldiers tell us that they were taught how to go to war, but not how to come home. You hear about divorces, binge-drinking, post-traumatic stress, suicide. And the reaction from the president is part of a pattern from the very beginning to show that this war is not costly or consequential.”

And from Salon:

A February report by the Army’s Mental Health Advisory Team said that nearly a third of married enlisted men and more than a fifth of married noncommissioned officers were planning to get a divorce by the end of their 15-month deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan. The divorce rate among enlisted soldiers has risen from 2.3 percent in 2001 to 3.5 percent today.

Guantanamo

Posted on by elizabeth
2

Next month, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni who was once a driver for Osama bin Laden, could become the first detainee to be tried for war crimes in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. By now, he should be busily working on his defense.

But his lawyers say he cannot. They say Hamdan, already the subject of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, has essentially been driven insane by solitary confinement in a tiny cell where he spends at least 22 hours a day, goes to the bathroom and eats all his meals. His defense team says he is suicidal, hears voices, has flashbacks, talks to himself and says the restrictions of Guantánamo “boil his mind.”

“He will shout at us,” said his military defense lawyer, Lieutenant Commander Brian Mizer. “He will bang his fists on the table.”

His lawyers have asked a military judge to stop his case until Hamdan is placed in less restrictive conditions at Guantánamo, saying he cannot get a fair trial if he cannot focus on defending himself. The judge is to hear arguments as soon as Monday on whether he has the power to consider the claim.

Critics have long asserted that Guantánamo’s climate-controlled isolation is a breeding ground for insanity. But turning that into a legal claim marks a new stage for the military commissions at Guantánamo. As military prosecutors push to get trials under way, they are being met with challenges not just to the charges, but to Guantánamo itself.

Conditions are more isolating than many death rows and maximum-security prisons in the United States, said Jules Lobel, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh who is an expert on U.S. prison conditions.

Pentagon officials say that Guantánamo holds dangerous men humanely and that there is no unusual quantity of mental illness there. Guantánamo, a military spokeswoman said, does not have solitary confinement, only “single-occupancy cells.”

In response to questions, Commander Pauline Storum, the spokeswoman for Guantánamo, asserted that detainees were much healthier psychologically than the population in U.S. prisons. Storum said about 10 percent could be found mentally ill, compared, she said, with data showing that more than half of inmates in U.S. correctional institutions had mental health problems.   more here

International Herald Tribune

Yes well guess what?  The reason US prisons have more mentally ill inmates than Guantanamo is that the US has more people in prison than any Western industrialized country.  And the US has inadequate mental health services and facilities to care for all of its mentally ill people.  So, whereas back in the day, a person may have been cared for in a psychiatric inpatient or outpatient programme, now they are more likely to be imprisoned.  Approximately 1/3 of America’s prison population is mentally ill.  That’s not something to be proud of!

For instance, see “The Prison Industry in the United States” by Vickie Palaez   here