An Arkansas man has been arrested for allegedly driving his car into a Ten Commandments monument at the state Capitol early Wednesday morning. Interestingly, this is the second time that Michael Tate Reed, 32, has been arrested for driving into a religious monument. The last time was in 2014, when he ran over another Ten Commandments display at the Oklahoma State Capitol. That time he said Satan made him do it and he reportedly threatened to kill President Obama.

But Reed seems to be non-partisan–he also recently threatened President Trump on social media. He had also planned for the event by creating a GoFundMe page, with which he hoped to raise enough money to replace his car. Around 5 a.m. on Wednesday, Reed drove his car straight into the statue, while shouting, “Oh my goodness, Freedom!” He also streamed the incident on Facebook Live.

Before the crash, he said in the Facebook video that he was back at it with “white plans,” but it’s unclear what he meant by that. He also said that he is a Christian but added, “one thing I do not support is the violation of our constitutional right to have the freedom that’s guaranteed to us, that guarantees us the separation of church and state, because no one religion should the government represent.” Finally, he asked people who support his cause to use the hashtag #Checkmate on social media.

NEW: Man accused of knocking over 10 Commandments statue at AR Capitol did the same thing in OK, 3 years ago:https://t.co/3F8dJsNdur #arpx pic.twitter.com/YtdpH2j292

— Emma Pettit (@EmmaJanePettit) June 28, 2017

The monument crumbled and Reed was taken to the hospital and then to jail. The stone statue had only been up for a day, but Republican State Senator Jason Rapert was confident a new monument would be up soon. He sponsored a law that took effect in 2015, which allowed private citizens to fund the religious monument and put it outside the Capitol. Opponents of that bill said that escaping a government-established religion was one of the things the colonists fled when they first set foot in America.

The crash sparked both criticism and support on social media. Some hailed him as a hero and patriot for standing up for the constitution, while others said the opposite. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee did not exactly support what happened.

Some idiot in my home state broke all 10 commandments at the same time. He wasn’t Moses and it wasn’t Mt. Sinai. https://t.co/r8hXrJ32JZ

— Gov. Mike Huckabee (@GovMikeHuckabee) June 28, 2017

But others definitely did.

some idiot legislator thought it was okay to place a religious statue in a place where governing occurs, despite separation of church and st https://t.co/1CmKRwVTZg

— John Hornor (@johnhornor) June 28, 2017

Reed was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder back in 2015. Later that year, he sent a letter to the Tulsa World describing why he had destroyed the monument at the state’s Capitol. He wrote that he got his inspiration from Dracula movies, that he thought he was the incarnation of a British occult leader called Aleister Crowley, and that a killer virus in the shape of Michael Jackson’s spirit had infected meat. He said that at the time of the 2014 crash he was also trying to get in touch with Satan’s high priestess, Gwyneth Paltrow.

After the earlier incident, many Republican lawmakers tried to paint what happened as politically motivated or an act of violence or terrorism, but Reed’s family insisted it was his illness. He was released from a mental health facility after doctors found a combination of medicines that seemed to work for him. It’s not clear what prompted Wednesday’s crash, but hopefully, he will get proper care.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Man Arrested for Driving His Car Into Ten Commandments Display at Arkansas Capitol appeared first on Law Street.

The trial of Michelle Carter, the 20-year-old Massachusetts woman who urged her boyfriend to kill himself through text messages, is about to begin. Back in 2014, she sent dozens of text messages to her boyfriend Conrad Roy III, telling him that the time was right, and to just “do it.” He subsequently killed himself through carbon monoxide poisoning in his truck.

But Carter’s lawyer has argued that text messages are protected free speech. She also argued that Roy had been depressed for some time and that Carter couldn’t be responsible for his death. Jury selection was set to begin Monday, but Carter opted for a bench trial, which means her fate will be decided by the judge and not by a jury.

She is facing charges of involuntary manslaughter in Bristol County Juvenile Court. Although it’s difficult to convict someone for what they wrote in a text message, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court–which ruled that Carter must stand trial in an appeal of a lower court’s decision not to dismiss the case–said in a 2016 ruling, “But for the defendant’s admonishments, pressure, and instructions, the victim would not have gotten back into the truck and poisoned himself to death.”

NEW: Michelle Carter arrives at court for trial

Carter is accused of sending her friend texts encouraging him to kill himself@Boston25 pic.twitter.com/rQPqrDD8cQ

— Peter Wilson (@PetesWire) June 5, 2017

The police investigation after Roy’s suicide concluded that Carter had “strongly influenced” his decision to take his own life using carbon monoxide. The couple reportedly met online and mainly kept in touch over the internet, only meeting in person twice. They had apparently not seen each other for a year at the time of Roy’s death.

According to a court filing, Roy had a history of mental illness and had previously tried to kill himself. Later, after he expressed a wish to kill himself, Carter tried to persuade him to do it. “You already made this decision and if you don’t do it tonight you’re gonna be thinking abut it all the time and stuff all the rest of your life and be miserable,” she wrote to him.

Carter also wrote, “You have to just do it. You have everything you need. There is no way you can fail. Tonight is the night. It’s now or never.” She added that he always seemed to have an excuse to not do it and scolded him for not going through with it. It’s unclear why she urged him to kill himself rather than getting help. At one point Roy said he was scared and got out of his car to call her. But she convinced him to go back in and finish what he started.

It’s hard to say what the outcome of this trial will be, but the disturbing content and detail of the text message conversations have made it one that many will follow. Opening statements begin on Tuesday morning.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Look at the Upcoming Trial for Woman Who Urged Boyfriend to Kill Himself appeared first on Law Street.

An estimated 15.7 million adults in the United States experienced at least one major depressive episode in 2014. Rates of depression have been on the rise in the United States for some time, causing some researchers to refer to it as an “epidemic.” The cause for this increase is unknown but some speculate that depression may be another “disease of modernity,” like obesity.

As with obesity, depression and the related condition of loneliness, are often linked to lifestyle. Modern life can isolate us from other human beings, causing loneliness and contributing to depression. Loneliness is more than just a negative feeling. It can have very real effects on a person’s health. Medical conditions like heart disease, cancer, and Alzheimer’s disease are all made worse by loneliness. Even our immune systems are weakened when we are lonely.

Depression is also more than just a negative feeling. Everyone has, at some point, felt depressed. Many people experience what is commonly referred to as “situational depression,” which does not rise to the level of a mood disorder. The death of a loved one or a job loss can trigger an episode of depression. This is the type of depression most of us are familiar with and while therapy helps situational depression, drugs are typically not part of the treatment. However, for people suffering from depression that rises to the level of a depressive disorder, a kind of “chemical depression” where the person’s brain chemistry is misaligned in some way, drugs can be an important part of treatment.

Modern psychiatry has made amazing developments in the treatment of mental illness with drug therapy. Just a short time ago, a patient whose depression was resistant to treatment through therapy and medication had the option to try electroconvulsive therapy or ECT. (Some patients were forcibly electroshocked without their consent, which is a whole other ball of wax). ECT is incredibly controversial and not for the faint of heart. Today there may be a new solution for patients who find that their depression does not respond to therapy or FDA-approved drug treatments.

This new solution is not quite as controversial as ECT but there are concerns about the use of this drug to treat depression. How worried should we be about introducing ketamine as a treatment for depression?

Off-Label

Ketamine is commonly used in veterinary medicine to tranquilize or euthanize animals and it is even used to tranquilize humans as well, typically for surgical procedures. It is also sometimes used as a date-rape drug and is probably best known by its nickname: “Special K.” Ketamine a psychedelic drug like LSD or mushrooms, which can cause hallucinations in addition to general euphoria. It’s typically found at raves and parties, but it does have several medical applications. While its medical use comes with few side effects, ketamine abuse can lead to amnesia, incontinence, and death. Unsurprisingly, it is also highly addictive.

Even so, medical professionals are impressed with ketamine and its potential to be a nearly miraculous treatment for depression. In the video below, Dr. Sanjay Matthew, an expert on depression and professor at the Baylor College of Medicine, explains the emerging research on ketamine as a treatment. What makes ketamine such an exciting new option is the speed with which it delivers results. Most depression drugs take weeks or months to start working for patients. The wait time to see if the medication will even be effective is not just an inconvenience, as many people who need treatment are at a high risk for suicide; a two to three-month wait for relief could be fatal.

As Dr. Matthew explains, ketamine works in hours, not weeks. For some patients, it could literally be life-saving. There is, however, a risk to the use of ketamine as a treatment. Like all medicines, there are potential side effects. In ketamine’s case, the main danger is the likelihood of addiction. That potential certainly does exist, much like opioid pain-killers have dramatically increased the number of people addicted to pain medication, often spurring them to try heroin as well.

How Does it Work?

Ketamine works differently than traditional anti-depressant medications and would be most helpful for patients who have “treatment-resistant” depression. As many as 40 percent of depressed patients don’t get symptom relief from traditional anti-depressants. Most traditional anti-depressants work by creating new synapses in the brain’s serotonin reception system, which is why that treatment can take several weeks to be effective. By contrast, ketamine treatment fosters the creation of enzymes required to stimulate connections between existing synapses, which may be why the results with ketamine are so immediate. While 40 percent of depression cases can be resistant to treatment, in ketamine trials 70 percent of people with resistant depression improved dramatically with its use. The National Institute of Mental Health sponsored randomized trials for both depression and bipolar disorder that have found significant benefits from the use of ketamine.

Risks and Concerns 

This story from NPR highlights some of the concerns surrounding the use of ketamine, including the fact that it is not currently FDA-approved to treat depression. Ketamine has been used as an anesthetic since the Vietnam War, but it can also cause hallucinations and lead to addiction. It was made a Schedule III substance in 1999, putting it on par with LSD in the eyes of the law. This is why many companies are seeking to create drugs that are similar to ketamine in their effect on depression but without the high. Both a nasal spray and a pill are being explored by two different companies as potential treatment options. These drugs are all still currently in the clinical trial phase, so it could be years before any of them are approved for depression treatment.

Using an unapproved drug when other treatments have failed is grounds for asking questions, but it isn’t necessarily too dangerous for us to feel comfortable with. Even if the drug is highly addictive, it is still being administered by a physician–the dose is highly controlled. And it is being used to treat a population of people, severely depressed and suicidal patients, who are more likely to be self-medicating with drugs and alcohol if they aren’t otherwise helped. Versions of ketamine, either in new sprays or pills as well as its current use intravenously, have been used successfully for years in various medical settings. And while ketamine can be addictive and dangerous, the cost-benefit analysis on ketamine has already been done in other medical situations.

Split Responsibilities 

Part of the problem with the use of ketamine is not necessarily its addictive potential or the possible medical complications, but that it spans two different medical categories and doesn’t really “fit” into either space. Doctor Carlos Zarate Jr., the chief of neurobiology at the National Institute of Mental Health, explains that ketamine is typically administered by an anesthesiologist, who isn’t qualified to determine if a patient should be taking it. But a psychiatrist, who could tell if the patient is a candidate for the drug or not–for example, a bipolar person on the verge of a manic episode–isn’t necessarily willing to administer the actual treatment. A specialty clinic or research trial would have both hands on deck–a psychiatrist to manage the psychological aspects of treatment and an anesthesiologist to handle the medical aspects and potential complications.

Ketamine already has an established track record in the medical community as a drug that can be used to stop physical suffering. It is actually the go-to drug in emergency rooms for children with serious pain. Ketamine can cause hallucinations and an “altered” sense of reality, even at the low doses that are used to treat adults with depression. But most of the negative consequences, such as hallucinations and addictive behavior, come from the drug being used in much higher doses and not under doctor supervision. The risk is still there but it has already been proven to be a risk that doctors are willing to take in other medical situations.

The problem with ketamine is much like the problem with opioid painkiller abuse. The opioid epidemic comes not from having and using opioids, when they are needed, but from not treating opioids in a way that acknowledges how dangerous they can be. It was caused by patients, doctors and drug companies that advertised, falsely, that the likelihood of addiction is low, pushing painkillers as the wave of the future. (If you’re interested in the institutional contribution to the rise of the opioid epidemic take some time to watch Frontline’s “Chasing Heroin”). But the lessons to be learned from the opioid epidemic are not to avoid new drugs that have addictive potential. Almost all powerful drugs have the potential for addiction and most medications have potential side effects. It’s a cautionary tale that speaks to the need to monitor treatment and remove financial incentives for over-prescribing and over-promoting new wonder drugs. We should approach the use of ketamine carefully, but not deny its potential usefulness because it can be abused.

Conclusion

Ketamine is not a miracle cure for depression. But, according to Dennis Hartman, who participated in a research trial for the drug treatment with the National Institute of Mental Health, it saved his life and allowed him to manage his depression the way one would manage any other chronic illness. In 2012, he helped found the Ketamine Advocacy Network, which advocates for the drug to be used as a treatment for depression. When you visit the website it starts a tracker which will count how many suicides have occurred, pharmaceutical sales have been generated, and how much economic loss has resulted from depression. If you check out the site, you will likely be surprised by how fast those numbers climb.

Sometimes the “next big thing” is a hoax or a Pandora’s Box with consequences we do not foresee–just as we did not have the foresight to anticipate the rampant abuse that would result from an effort to relieve pain with the development of opioid painkillers. But sometimes the “next big thing” in medicine is something like penicillin. If every time Alexander Fleming came across a moldy cantaloupe he threw it out, the world would be a very different (and far less populated) place.

Resources

The Washington Post: A One Time Party Drug Is Helping People With Deep Depression 

The Washington Post: Loneliness Grows From Individual Ache To Public Health Hazard 

The National Center For Biotechnology Information: Depression as a Disease of Modernity: Explanations For Increasing Prevalence 

DrugInfo: Australian Drug Foundation, Ketamine

NPR: Ketamine Depression Treatments Inspired By Club Drug Move Ahead In Tests

NPR: Club Drug Ketamine Gains Traction As a Treatment For Depression

Ketamine Advocacy Network

PBS: The Real Story Behind The World’s First Antibiotic

National Institute of Mental Health: Rapid Antidepressant Works by Boosting Brain’s Connections

Al Jazeera America: Could Ketamine Become the Next Great Depression Drug?

Mary Kate Leahy

Mary Kate Leahy (@marykate_leahy) has a J.D. from William and Mary and a Bachelor’s in Political Science from Manhattanville College. She is also a proud graduate of Woodlands Academy of the Sacred Heart. She enjoys spending her time with her kuvasz, Finn, and tackling a never-ending list of projects. Contact Mary Kate at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Special K: “The Next Big Thing” in Psychiatry? appeared first on Law Street.

As mass shootings become the focus of public attention after two high-profile incidents in the span of  a couple of days, more and more people are demanding a response from Congress. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan recently faced a question about how to address mass shootings to which he responded saying that the focus needs to be on mental illness. Ryan then pointed to a bill from Representative Tim Murphy, a Republican from Pennsylvania, which seeks to overhaul the American mental health system. While nearly everyone agrees that the United States needs a better approach to mental health, the connection between mental illness and mass shootings is much more complicated than it may seem.

Before we get into the validity behind associating mental health with mass shootings, it is important to acknowledge the fact that most Americans see it as an important underlying problem. According to an ABC/Washington Post poll from October, Americans are nearly split on whether the government should prioritize passing new gun laws or protecting gun rights, but nearly two-thirds believe that improving mental health treatment is necessary to address mass shootings. When asked whether mass shootings are a reflection of problems with identifying and treating people with mental health issues or inadequate gun control laws, 63 percent believe mental health is the issue. There is a partisan difference in opinions–Republicans overwhelmingly focus on mental health while only 46 percent of Democrats focus on mental health alone. But despite those differences, only 23 percent of respondents said inadequate gun control laws were more concerning than mental health issues.

While Democrats often criticize Republicans’ reluctance to talk about gun control after mass shootings, it’s fair to say that addressing mental health problems is a greater concern for their constituents than stronger gun laws are. So in the wake of the tragic Sandy Hook shooting in 2012, the Republican Party looked to Rep. Tim Murphy, the only psychiatrist in Congress, to come up with a response. Murphy traveled across the country to speak with communities and mental health experts to determine the best way to fix the current system. While Murphy’s bill, the Helping Families in Mental Health Crises Act, marks the most comprehensive approach to overhauling the U.S. mental health system, it’s important to ask how doing so will affect mass gun violence.

In a review of research on mental health and gun violence, Vanderbilt University professors Jonathan M. Metzl and Kenneth T. MacLeish find that there is little evidence to suggest that mental illness causes gun violence. While it is true that in the aftermath of mass shootings reports often indicate that the perpetrator experienced some sort of paranoia, delusion, or depression prior to the attack, suggesting that mental illness caused the shooting is another matter. Metzl and MacLeish cite the finding that less than 3 to 5 percent of crimes in the United States are committed by people with mental illness, and that proportion may be lower in terms of gun crime.

In fact, people with mental illness are far more likely to be the victim of a crime than the perpetrator. For example, one study found that people diagnosed with schizophrenia are victimized at rates 65 to 130 percent higher than the general public. The authors concluded, “In general, the risk associated with being in the community was higher than the risk these individuals posed to the community.” Saying that all people diagnosed with mental illnesses are likely to commit mass shootings is about as useful as saying we should take away the gun rights of white men because most mass shooters also fit that demographic. In reality, the vast majority of white men and people diagnosed with mental illness will not commit mass violence.

Metzl and MacLeish also question the claim that mental health professionals can predict and prevent gun crime. While efforts to prevent the next mass shooting are well intentioned, basing that off of psychiatric diagnosis is remarkably difficult. The authors argue that psychiatric diagnosis is primarily a matter of observation, and they note that for that reason “research dating back to the 1970s suggests that psychiatrists using clinical judgment are not much better than laypersons at predicting which individual patients will commit violent crimes and which will not.”

In some ways, the difficulty in using psychiatric diagnosis to predict mass violence is a matter of math. Public health research can be used to determine a person’s risk of heart attack based on large-scale studies and randomized trials, but when it comes to mass shootings and mental health, the data is limited. As Jeffery Swanson, a professor in Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Duke University School of Medicine, notes in his research on predicting rare acts of violence:

In a U.S. city the size of San Jose, California, (population about 1,000,000), about 4,000 people every year will have a heart attack; perhaps one or two will be killed by someone with mental illness wielding a gun. Treatment evidence for preventing death from myocardial infarction has piled up from hundreds of clinical investigations over several decades, involving more than 50,000 patients in randomized trials by the early 1980s . When it comes to persons with mental disorders who kill strangers, there is nothing remotely resembling such an empirical evidence base.

The Republican mental health bill marks an ambitious effort to address a growing problem in the United States, but saying that it is a plan to prevent future mass shootings is misleading. According to the Treatment Advocacy Center, there are 350,000 Americans in state jails and prisons who have been diagnosed with a severe mental illness–that, among other things, is what Rep. Murphy’s bill seeks to address. The bill would restructure the funding for mental health care and change health privacy rules to allow family members to get information about a loved one’s treatment. On the other hand, the bill does not address whether or not someone with a mental illness should have access to guns.

Instead of advertising Murphy’s bill as a means to solve mass shootings, Congress should focus on the need for mental health reform by itself. The Helping Families in Mental Health Crises Act does have controversial provisions, notably whether states should be encouraged to develop Assisted Outpatient Treatment programs, which allows courts to compel treatment for individuals before he or she has a mental health crisis. And whether Murphy’s plan to move funding from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration–which he views as wasteful and ineffective–to a create an Assistant Secretary for Mental Health is the best way to spend money on mental health treatment.

Murphy’s bill is certainly ambitious and he already has some bipartisan support and backing from important mental health groups, but it also has some controversial provisions. For this reason, the debate on its passage should focus on whether or not it will improve and expand treatment for the 10 million Americans who experience severe mental illness in a given year–not whether it will prevent mass shootings.

Read More: Police Brutality and the Mentally Ill in America

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fixing Mental Health Care Will Not Stop Mass Shootings, But That’s Okay appeared first on Law Street.

The gridlock over American gun laws may actually be worse than the arguments over American healthcare. Whenever there is a mass shooting (defined in this post as four or more people killed), there are calls for stricter gun control, but those calls are never answered because an agreement on what to do is never reached. The voices against gun control are so loud and so rooted in paranoia in organizations like the National Rifle Association, that a meaningful solution seems impossible. We hear the same arguments over and over again, and over and over again, yet nothing is done and another act of gun violence occurs.

What people so adamant about the need for guns may not understand is that gun control–in all likelihood–will not take all the guns away. Instead, it will make the ability to obtain firearms much more difficult, and as we can see by looking at other countries who have successfully enforced such laws, the number of gun crimes will go down as a result.

“But we’re not like those countries!” Gun enthusiasts will say. “We’re America!”

Of course, they’re right. We aren’t like those countries. We’re larger, we have more guns per person, and damn it, our right to bear arms is right in our Constitution!

But when it comes to issues like this, when people are consistently losing their lives to gun-related crimes and accidents, the definition of insanity applies: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is ridiculous. It clearly isn’t working, so is it so insane to want to change something?

When faced with such a massively divisive issue, I find it helpful to go straight to the facts. In his speech acknowledging the most recent mass shooting in Oregon, President Obama implored news organizations to focus on the numbers. Many have done just that.

According to the above video, since 1997, the United States of America has had 51 mass killings. 51.

This is unacceptable.

Now is the time that the anti-gun control camp will chime in with this solution: more guns will make us safer.

If more #sane #people were #armed #crazy #people would get off #fewer #shots #LetsGetWordy http://t.co/g5f2HAvQkM pic.twitter.com/Ay1HO0Fd70

— Pete Thompson (@earningamotorcy) August 15, 2014

Well wait a second, didn’t we just learn that there are over 88 guns to every 100 people in the U.S.? Is that not enough guns to, supposedly, be protected? And even if someone with a gun were on the premises of every mass shooting, the one doing the shooting initially has the advantage, and people will probably still die. Instead of encouraging more gun sales, maybe we encourage better gun safety: background checks into those wanting to buy firearms, mandatory registration for every firearm owned by a United States resident, and a more developed process for obtaining concealed-carry licenses in each state.

But the Second Amendment says “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Isn’t a firearm registration system and stricter rules for obtaining guns infringement?

Here we find ourselves in a problem that applies to laws other than gun control: are the rules our founding fathers established still relevant in today’s society? In the case of owning a gun, not really.

You have to force yourself to think about society during America’s development: we were in the midst of a revolution, we had a much smaller population, and we were exploring new land to the west, so owning a gun to hunt for food and to protect yourself against enemy soldiers made sense. But what about now–in 2015? Gun control laws won’t take away your hobbies: heading to the gun range for target practice, or going quail hunting during its season. You will still be able to keep a gun locked up in your home for “protection,” so really, is the Second Amendment changing much? And if it did, would it really be a bad thing?

More than any other argument used to dismiss gun control, the one most often cited is “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” That’s right: people wielding guns kill people. We do indeed have a mental health crisis in this country, but it is not necessarily related to the number of mass shootings. If asked to characterize a mass murderer, what would the identifiers be? Crazy? Mentally unbalanced? Maybe, but how can we possibly tell that ahead of time? The obvious answer to this is a mental health evaluation before being allowed to purchase a firearm. Even then, not all mass murderers are obviously unwell.

In fact, as John Oliver points out in the video below, fewer than five percent of gun-related killings are performed by mentally unwell people.

So what do we do about the gun problem we so obviously have in our country? It won’t be a simple solution, but at this point, any solution is better than nothing.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post It’s Time to Debunk Arguments Against Gun Control appeared first on Law Street.

A Human Rights Watch report released this month titled “Callous and Cruel: Use of Force Against Inmates With Mental Disabilities in U.S. Jails and Prisons,” reported on the treatment of mentally ill inmates in prisons. The report documented major abuses in the prison system and major flaws in the availability of mental health services, and indicates that mentally ill do not do well in the American prison system. But why do they end up in correctional facilities in the first place? Read on to learn about mental health care in the United States and how it intersects with criminal justice.

How many mentally ill people are in correctional facilities?

People with mental illnesses are heavily represented in correctional facilities across the United States. In 2006, mentally ill inmates numbered 705,600 in state prisons, 78,800 in federal prisons, and 479,900 in local jails. In 2009, mentally ill individuals were on parole and probation at rates two to four times the general population. As of 2012, there were 356,368 mentally ill inmates in American jails and prisons. At the same time, psychiatric facilities hosted only 35,000 mentally ill patients, ten times less than the number of mentally ill inmates housed in correction facilities.

By various estimations, 20 percent of jail inmates and 15 percent of state prisoners, including violent and non-violent offenders, have some sort of mental ailment. Some of them were born with mental illnesses, while many acquired mental disabilities as the result of various circumstances. 

Why are so many mentally ill Americans in the prison system?

In order to understand why so many mentally ill Americans end up in correctional facilities instead of psychiatric hospitals, it’s important to look at the history and the changing dynamics of mental health care in the United States.

Using prisons and jails to house mentally ill people is not a new phenomenon. In fact, from 1770 to 1820, individuals with mental disabilities were routinely confined to correctional facilities. This practice was condemned as cruel and inhumane. As a result, the government asserted its obligation to care for and treat mentally ill people in a more suitable environment, creating a wide net of mental health hospitals across the country. Before the 1940s, the majority of mentally ill individuals, especially those with severe mental ailments, were housed in public mental institutions.

This situation changed in the beginning of 1950s. The government was again criticized for the inhumane treatment of mentally ill patients, now housed in psychiatric facilities, resulting in the inception of the deinstitutionalization movement. From this point on, instead of providing treatment and care in public mental hospitals, the government shifted the policies toward community-based treatment centers. The deal was sealed by the Mental Health Centers Act of 1963 that pushed mental health care away from state-run psychiatric hospitals and toward community-based centers. These changes allowed those with mental ailments to live in the community while receiving treatment at nearby mental facilities.

But in practice, this shift in policies created a disconnect between the care and treatment of mentally ill people, especially those with severe and chronic mental ailments. After deinstitutionalization, many were left without needed care as the government’s focus shifted toward outpatient mental services.

Shifting mental health policies toward outpatient services and breaking the link between treatment and care resulted in the decline of inpatient care and depreciation of state mental hospitals. In 1959, public psychiatric hospitals housed 559,000 mentally ill patients, by the late 1990s there were only 70,000 patients in such facilities. Now, there are only 35,000 patients in psychiatric hospitals, the lowest number in decades. Most states don’t even have enough psychiatric beds. From 2009-2012, the government disposed of 4,500 beds in public psychiatric hospitals. For example, Connecticut has only 20 beds per 100,000 people, while the nationally recommended standard is 50 beds per 100,000 people.

Thus, the deinstitutionalization of mental health services shifted public spending toward prescription drugs and outpatient treatment, largely ignoring the needs of those mentally ill people who required inpatient treatment. At the same time, access to outpatient mental health services proved to be worse than access to any other health services. In 2010, there were 156,300 mental health counselors in the United States. It’s estimated that 89.3 million Americans are living in areas that lack mental health professionals.

Mental health care is very expensive. In fact, 45 percent of people who suffer from some sort of mental illness fail to receive appropriate treatment due to the high costs associated with mental health services. A quarter of those who are mentally ill and have sought outpatient mental health services end up largely paying for treatment themselves, with out-of-pocket costs ranging from $100 to $5,000.

From 2009 to 2012, state governments, who pay most of the mental health care costs, also cut $5 billion from their funding overall, negatively influencing the availability and price of outpatient mental health services. 

The failure of the current mental health system to treat and care for people with severe and chronic mental illnesses paired with the lack of access to outpatient services is what has brought so many mentally ill people into the prison system. Those who have severe and/or chronic mental illnesses and cannot get access to outpatient mental health treatment, often end up in the criminal justice system. Before deinstitutionalization mentally ill people with severe and chronic illnesses were hospitalized, reducing their chances to break the law and come in contact with law enforcement. Some experts argue that beginning in the 1970s the United States has turned back toward incarceration practices resembling the 1800s paradigm of confining mentally ill people instead of treating and caring for them.

How do people with mental illnesses end up in the prison system?

Often, mentally ill people are arrested for crimes that could be avoided with proper mental health treatment or inpatient services. Those crimes are more bothersome than dangerous, and can include disorderly conduct, trespassing, disturbing the peace, and public intoxication. 

As 25-50 percent of mentally ill people in American prisons also suffer from substance abuse disorders, and 60 percent reported using drugs, alcohol, or both a month prior to their arrest, substance abuse issues can increase the likelihood of people with mental illnesses ending up in jail or prison. 

After initial contact with law enforcement, mentally ill individuals go through the court system. Due to harsh drug sentencing policies, such as “zero tolerance” and mandatory sentencing for certain drug offenses, mentally ill people are often sentenced to jail or prison terms.

All in all, those with mental disorders have a higher chance of coming into contact with law enforcement, mostly due to their mental condition. If they are regularly using drugs or alcohol, the chances are even higher. But, instead of offering treatment and support services to those with mental illnesses, the American justice system often uses the most punitive approach: incarceration.

What are the issues with incarcerating mentally ill individuals? 

Inadequate Staff Training

Inadequate staff training is one of the most important issues when talking about mentally ill people in the prison system. Many correction officers and jail deputies receive no guidance in how to interact with mentally ill inmates. Prison staff often don’t recognize symptoms of mental illness, nor do they use appropriate techniques, such as verbal de-escalation, when communicating with such inmates. Even when mental health professionals are available in the vicinity of the prison, guards rarely call for their intervention.

Physical Abuse

According to the recent Human Rights Watch Report, mentally ill inmates in American prisons and jails are regularly abused, including physically, by prison staff. The study cites the use of chemical sprays and stun guns as well as strapping mentally ill inmates to chairs and beds for prolonged periods of time. 

Solitary Confinement

Besides the fact that mentally ill inmates often suffer from physical abuse from prison or jail staff, they are also more often held in isolation, sometimes for months. According to a 2010 audit of three state prisons in Wisconsin, 55-75 percent of inmates in solitary confinement were mentally ill. Prolonged isolation of such inmates can exacerbate their conditions and increase symptoms of mental illness, often resulting in more misconduct instead of compliance.

Management Problems

As life in correctional facilities is heavily regulated and supervised, mentally impaired individuals can experience issues following rules, creating additional problems for prison guards. In many cases, their behavior is symptomatic, meaning that it’s conditioned by mental illness. They can  refuse to follow orders, and sometimes injure themselves, all things that can disrupt the daily routines of correction officers and other inmates. In some cases mentally ill inmates are provocative and can pose a danger to themselves or others.

Lack of Treatment

As prisons are not psychiatric hospitals, they often lack  mental health services as well as mental health professionals. Inmates are often not properly diagnosed, don’t have timely access to mental health services, and are often treated with medications only. Correctional facilities cannot usually aid mentally ill inmates in their recovery or even alleviate symptoms of their mental illnesses. In fact, the most helpful procedures for mentally ill patients are often not used in correctional facilities. Mentally ill inmates rarely receive therapeutic mental health interventions or participate in psychiatric rehabilitation programs.

Longer Stay

Mentally ill inmates usually stay in the prison system longer than those who have no mental issues. There are two primary reasons for this. First, mentally ill inmates can be less obedient due to their mental disorder, leading to additional charges and prolonged sentences. The other reason centers on the long waiting periods for beds in psychiatric hospitals. For example, in Florida’s Orange County Jail the average stay for mentally ill inmates is twice as long than for those without mental illnesses. In New York’s Riker’s Island Jail, the average stay for a mentally ill inmate is even longer—215 days–compared with 42 days for inmates without mental ailments. 

It’s Expensive

The cost of holding mentally ill inmates in prisons and jails is higher than average. This is due to the higher spendings on mental health services, including medications and staffing. It’s estimated that mentally ill inmates cost $130 a day, $50 more than average. The overall cost of incarcerating mentally ill inmates can be two to three times higher than average. 

Suicide & Rape

Mentally ill inmates are more likely to commit suicide than inmates who do not have mental illnesses. Multiple studies confirmed that the harsh prison conditions and the lack of proper treatment can increase the odds of suicide for this population. For example, a 2002 study of a Washington county jail noted that 77 percent of all suicides were committed by inmates with a mental illness. Sexual assault is another danger for mentally ill inmates. Many are are sexually assaulted, and their likelihood of being raped is higher than the general population in American prisons and jails. 

Watch the video below to get a full picture of mental health behind bars:

Conclusion

It’s evident that there are many issues with incarceration of mentally ill people, as there are many shortcomings and flaws in American mental health care, especially in prisons and jails. Such a system creates a cycle of incarceration for mentally ill people, by providing no remedies after the initial release. States should invest in more beds in public mental hospitals and provide better access to outpatient community treatment programs. It’s time to start treating and caring for the mentally ill, not just incarcerating them. 

Resources

Primary

National Institute of Corrections: Mentally Ill Persons in Corrections

Additional

Health Affairs: Mental Health Policy in America: Myths and Realities

The New York Times: Mentally Ill Inmates Are Routinely Physically Abused, Study Says

Human Rights Watch: Callous and Cruel: Use of Force against Inmates with Mental Disabilities in US Jails and Prisons

Washington Post: A Shocking Number of Mentally ill Americans End up in Prison Instead of Treatment

West Hartford News: Lawyers: Mentally Ill Need Services, not Prison

Treatment Advocacy Center: How Many Individuals with Serious Mental Illness are in Jails and Prisons? – Backgrounder

Mother Jones: There Are 10 Times More Mentally Ill People Behind Bars Than in State Hospitals

Stanford Law School: Three Strikes Project: When did Prisons Become Acceptable Mental Healthcare Facilities?

Washington Post: Seven facts about America’s Mental Health-care System

USA Today: Cost of Not Caring: Nowhere to Go

HNGN: Human Rights Watch: Mentally Ill Prisoners Are Abused In U.S. Correctional Facilities

The Sentencing Project: Mentally Ill Offenders in the Criminal Justice System: An Analysis and Prescription

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Are American Prisons Becoming Psychiatric Hospitals? appeared first on Law Street.

Mental illness is something that the American justice system has been dealing with for decades; particularly how to handle suspects suffering from it, how to determine who is mentally ill, and what are the best practices for apprehending, sentencing, and holding those people.

Mental illnesses are defined medically as “disorders that affect your mood, thinking, and behavior. Examples of mental illness include depression, anxiety disorders, schizophrenia, eating disorders, and addictive behaviors.” There’s no easy way to define a mental illness, and certain diseases don’t affect everyone in the same ways. That ambiguity is where many problems stem from–how should police deal with those who have mental illnesses?

Accusations of Police Brutality Against the Mentally Ill

The United Nations

The United States had to stand before the United Nations in Geneva last week to defend its human rights record. While this is a routine endeavor, it is still something that reflects badly upon the country and its leaders. There were a lot of topics to cover, but the most prevalent was police brutality. A staggering 120 countries were there to offer recommendations, making it one of the best-attended hearings in the history of the UN, and each country was given 65 seconds to speak. Countries from every corner of the globe stressed that police brutality and discrimination has to end. One of the main things that the discussions centered upon was the way that police officers treat mentally ill suspects.

Human Rights Watch Report

That wasn’t the end of the criticism over the way that the United States treats people with mental illnesses in the justice system. Also last week, Human Rights Watch produced a report that chronicled the daily lives of mentally ill inmates in America’s prisons, showing that the issues in the justice system extend far beyond police brutality. The report, coming in at a staggering 127 pages, is packed with stories of neglect, abuse, improper medical care, corporal punishment, and unnecessary solitary confinement.

Some of the stories reported were particularly troubling. There is one incident about a man with schizophrenia who lunged for a police officer. As punishment, they strapped him to a chair, put a mask over his face, and sprayed pepper spray directly into his face under the mask. There are stories of many inmates who were found dead or unconscious laying in pools of their own urine, vomit, blood, and feces.

One of the most harrowing stories is what happened to 50-year-old Darren Rainey, who, according to the report, had a “diagnosis of schizophrenia, [and] was housed in the inpatient mental health unit at Florida’s Dade Correctional Institution while serving two years on a cocaine charge.” His mental health caused him, at times, to smear feces on himself. The correctional officers would then have to transport him to the showers and help him clean up. The report alleges that the officers took Rainey to a broken shower that could be turned to scalding. He could not control the water nor leave the shower as the police closed the door. He stayed in the scalding shower for nearly two hours. When the police finally opened the door, they found him unresponsive and without a pulse. When they moved him, it was discovered that “he had burns over 90 percent of his body, and his skin was hot/warm to the touch and slipped off when touched.” There has not yet been a medical report on his death and the police investigation is ongoing.

The Treatment Advocacy Center estimates that there are about 360,000 prisoners in 5,100 American jails and prisons with serious mental illnesses–particularly schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and severe depression. That statistic has caused many people to wonder what exactly are the “rules” that the police have to follow when dealing with the mentally ill?

Should the mentally ill even be incarcerated?

There have been many discussions about exactly what rights a person with a mental illness has when he is arrested. Of course, there should be differences depending on the type and severity of the mental illness. But as a general rule, most protocols haven’t been broken up that way–instead, there are blanket policies for everyone, and they often deal more with procedures that need to be followed after the arrest. There are many allegations that the police act too harshly when dealing with suspects who have mental illnesses.

Some states have taken their own unique approaches. California, for example, has thoroughly questioned whether or not the Americans with Disabilities Act protects mentally ill suspects from being arrested and brought into the traditional justice system. That notion stems from a situation where a mentally ill woman, Theresa Sheehan, was shot five times after she waved a knife at police officers–police officers who knew she was mentally ill, as she had a history of mental breaks and was in a halfway house. The case was recently investigated by the United States Supreme Court.

In light of that case, Ron Honberg, Director of Policy and Legal Affairs at the National Alliance for Mental Illness (NAMI), said that law enforcement officers “have become first responders to people in psychiatric crisis,” but that “oftentimes, their traditional academy training doesn’t really teach police how to respond to such crisis.”

The Supreme Court found that the police were “immune” in the Sheehan case, stating:

A federal district court sided with the police, ruling that it would be unreasonable to ask officers trying to detain a violent, mentally disabled person to comply with the ADA before protecting themselves and others. But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said a jury should decide whether it was reasonable for the officers to use less confrontational tactics.

Testing and Treatment

So what are the policies once someone who may have a mental illness is actually arrested? If the police arrest someone whom they suspect is mentally ill, they are supposed to have them checked out by a mental health professional, which will typically result in a 24-to-72-hour stay in a mental health facility.

Family members of the mentally ill person can also ask for a police transport to the hospital if that was not an option during the arrest. This is sometimes called a “5150 hold.”

Certain states have stipulations against arrests of the mentally ill. A New York State guide for lawyers explains:

Under Criminal Procedure Law section 730, a judge who has reason to believe that a criminal defendant may be ‘incapacitated’ must order that the defendant undergo a psychiatric examination. ‘Incapacitated’ in this context means that because of mental disease or defect, the defendant is unable to understand the proceedings against him or assist in his own defense. A ‘730 exam,’ as such exams are referred to, can be requested by a defense attorney or an assistant district attorney, or may be ordered upon the judge’s own initiative.

Other states have similar stipulations. Denver has seen 11 deaths in 2015 after police have been called to the site of a mental breakdown–including one where a veteran was wielding scissors. The state is looking at its training and laws, but also considering on-site questions and tests.

The Supreme Court of Michigan recently ruled in a case against police that they used force against a mentally ill inmate:

That the evidence provided by plaintiff, indicating that the police were inadequately trained in dealing with the mentally ill and using impact projectiles, is sufficient to survive summary judgment. Plaintiff’s expert, retired Captain Van Blaircom, who is former chief of police for the City of Bellevue, Washington, testified that the Defendant officers should have known that the manner in which they approached the decedent would escalate the confrontation. According to Van Blaircom, the officer’s treatment of the situation, combined with their statements that a mentally ill person should be treated as any other person, regardless of the situation, indicates that the police department’s training dealing with the mentally ill falls well below the reasonable standard of contemporary care.

Conclusion

Overall, there seems to be some movement toward reform for police brutality against the mentally ill, but there is still a lot of ground to be covered, and covered quickly before anyone else dies. Procedures need to be enacted to ensure that officers deal fairly and effectively with suspects who are dealing with a mental illness. It is only through developing those policies that we can ensure all Americans are treated humanely.

Resources

ABC News: High Court: Police Immune Over Arrest of Mentally Ill Woman

Human Rights Watch: Callous and Cruel

Guardian: Police Shooting of Mentally Ill Woman Reaches US Supreme Court

Mayo Clinic: Mental Illness

Public Agency Training Council: Dealing With the Mentally Ill and Emotionally Disturbed in the Use of Force Context

Urban Institute: The Processing and Treatment of Mentally Ill Persons in the Criminal Justice System

Urban Justice Center’s Mental Health Project: How to Help

Aljazeera America: US Cited for Police Violence, Racism in Scathing UN Review on Human Rights

Coloradoan: Supreme Court to Rule on Arrests of Mentally Ill

Mother Jones: There Are Ten Times More Mentally Ill People Behind Bars Than in State Hospitals

National Alliance on Mental Illness: A Guide to Mental Illness and the Criminal Justice System

National Institute of Corrections: Mental Illness in Corrections

Schizophrenia: How to Help a Mentally Ill Family Member Who Has Been Arrested

Treatment Advocacy Center: More Mentally Ill Persons Are in Jails and Prisons Than Hospitals: A Survey of the States

LA Times: L.A. Police Accused of Excessive Force in Arrest of Mentally Ill Man

Mental Illness Policy Org: Criminalization of Individuals with Severe Psychiatric Disorders

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Police Brutality and the Mentally Ill in America appeared first on Law Street.

As Eddie Ray Routh’s trial continues in the high profile American Sniper murder case, two videos shown to the jurors by the prosecution may in fact aid the defense in trying to prove an insanity defense. This case highlights the difficult of using the insanity defense in real life–any defense based on someone’s state  of mind requires a lot of guesswork and interpretation.

Routh is accused of killing retired Navy Seal and author of the bestselling memoir “American Sniper” Chris Kyle and his neighbor Chad Littlefield. The killings took place at the Rough Creek Ranch-Lodge-Resort shooting range in Erath County, Texas. Routh, who fled the murder scene, pleaded not guilty to both murders in a Stephenville, Texas courtroom, but many wonder if he’ll be able to receive a fair trial just months after the film adaptation of “American Sniper” grossed millions in the box office .

Yesterday the prosecution rested, allowing the defense to begin using Routh’s history of mental illness to argue an insanity defense, in hopes of combatting a potential death penalty outcome. Routh had spent two years in mental hospitals suffering from schizophrenia and post traumatic stress disorder prior to the murders.

The prosecution, on the other hand, is arguing that Routh was not insane, but rather abused drugs and alcohol. They are arguing he knew right from wrong in spite of his schizophrenia diagnosis for which he was taking medication. Despite this, they seemingly managed to lay foundation for his defense team with a video submitted Tuesday into evidence that sheds light on the what kind of mental state he was in around the time of the murders.

The court is not allowing the audio to be released to the public until after the trial, but in the video Routh is seen in the back of a cop car after being arrested. He is breathing heavily and teary-eyed.

According to CNN, an officer asks if he’s okay. Routh replies:

I’m just so nervous about what’s been happening in my life today. I don’t know what’s been happening. I’ve been so paranoid schizophrenic all day. I don’t know what to even think of the world right now. I don’t know if I’m insane or sane.

Routh clearly sounds disturbed in his ramblings, making me question why the prosecution thought this would benefit them. You can watch brief scenes from the evidence in USA Today’s video account of the proceedings below.

In another video shown to jurors of his police interrogation the night of the murders, Routh is shown sounding even more unhinged. According to USA Today he confesses to the shootings saying:

I knew if I didn’t take out his soul, he was going to take mine. You can’t let people keep eating your soul, you know? Warlords aren’t happy with me.

However, the prosecution painted a different scene with recordings CNN reports were also released Tuesday of a jailhouse interview between Routh and a reporter from The New Yorker magazine. In the interview, he is heard saying several questionable phrases such as:

So we’re shooting pistols here huh? Hmmm, OK, Again, that’s pretty much saying duel motherf*****.

I was like what the f*** are you even doing here man? This isn’t a spectator sport, it’s a shooting sport, you shoot. And that’s what got me all, you know, wired up.

I took care of business and then I got in the truck and left.

In those recordings, he sounds somewhat confrontational and like he is lacking remorse. There are just a lot of questions about what was really going through Routh’s head at the time of the murders.

No one doubts that Routh was the one who shot Kyle and Littlefield, but understanding if he was mentally competent enough to understand what he was doing is the real question. Despite what legal procedurals would have you believe, insanity defenses are only used in less than 1 percent of felony cases, and only a fraction are successful. Keeping that in mind, Routh’s defense has only just begun to plead their case while Kyle’s entire community of Stephenville anxiously watches. Whether or not the insanity defense will succeed remains to be seen.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Videos of “American Sniper” Shooter Might Prove Insanity Defense appeared first on Law Street.

Mental illness and criminal law mix as well as oil and vinegar. Law desires reason and cause. The reason and cause of mental illness is often difficult to detect. While our scientific grasp on mental illness is growing, the evidence of how and why it might influence an individual’s behavior is often more nebulous than a legal professional might prefer, especially in the case of violent crime.

That’s what makes the insanity defense such a controversial topic.

Mental illnesses are real and often incapacitating, but how can you definitively prove they exist in courtroom arguments?

Below we’ll dig into why the brain is so mysterious, what this mystery means for the insanity defense, and what scientific steps we’re taking to de-mystify our own brains.

The Brain: Anatomy’s Rubik’s Cube

Our brain and its team of 100 billion neurons puppet our every move, thought, and action. It’s truly a wondrous biological mechanism, allowing us to solve a number of puzzles–except the puzzle that the brain itself presents. It’s one of anatomy’s cruelest jokes. Our body’s own mechanism for logic doesn’t quite understand itself. Yet.

After years of research and remarkable breakthroughs, many aspects of the brain and mind remain tauntingly elusive. This is not an insult to scientists, but more of a testament to the brain’s enormous complexity.

John Cleese’s parody video below captures the brain’s mystique.

Time out…the brain AND the mind?

Are the brain and the mind different? Don’t worry, I’m not opening a philosophical debate. But for the purpose of the following discussion, we need to view the brain and the mind as separate entities.

In discussing mental illness and criminal law, the difference between the brain and the mind comes down to the difference between psychology and physiology.

The physiology of the brain refers to those biological functions it performs. Neurons using electrical impulses to communicate with other cells is a biological function. Some illnesses, like psychosis, can be traced to physiological malfunctions that result from things like brain tumors.

Dr. Allan Reiss discusses the physiological aspects of mental illness in the video below, as well as his ambitions for pinpointing the specific diseases instead of symptoms.

Psychology, on the other hand, refers to the more nebulous mind. While scientists do believe the mind is influenced and even dependent on the physiological functions of the brain, it’s difficult to make a direct connection. Many individuals exhibit symptoms of behavioral disorders that can be linked only to the mind and have no known physiological causes. In these cases, psychological diagnoses usually rely on observations and questions about a person’s feelings, moods, actions, and behaviors.

This will be important later, when we’re talking about hard evidence in insanity pleas.

Communication Breakdown

The mind is associated with will power and “the self.” It’s hard to accept that complex mechanisms in our brains might drive the show instead of us.

The brain is unfathomably complex. It contains billions of neurons whose interactions determine your body’s functioning by communicating through a series of electrical signals. Everything we do relies on how neurons communicate with one another. Disruptions in this communication because of abnormal functioning of brain circuits may be an underlying cause of mental illness. If connections between certain messaging pathways in the brain are disrupted, the way it processes information might also be disrupted and abnormal perception, moods, or behaviors can result.

In summary, mental illness happens when the brain cannot effectively coordinate the billions of cells it controls.

Mental Illness and Crime

So mental illness results when the brain cannot effectively coordinate some of the billions of cells it controls. Unfortunately, figuring out exactly where the coordination faltered among the brain’s billions of cells and functions is like figuring out who lead the applause in a crowded stadium.

This lack of certainty creates a convoluted intersection for mental health and criminal law. The insanity defense exists to make sure no one is imprisoned who didn’t truly understand the consequences of their actions due to mental illness. If mental illness did impair their sense of consequence and right and wrong, they may be declared not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI). People found NGRI do not walk free–many are committed to mental institutions for at least as long as their criminal sentence would be.

For an insanity plea to hold weight, the defense must prove that the criminal’s mental condition directly influenced their actions at the time of the crime and inhibited their ability to appreciate that their actions were wrong.

Disorders with the most potent insanity defenses are those with physiological evidence that the condition caused an altered perception of reality or impaired ability to control behavior. For example, an X-ray clearly depicting a brain tumor that might have caused hallucinations is stronger evidence than a patchy history of emotional disturbances. If there is trauma, injury, tumors, or physical elements like epilepsy, the case will hold more weight than just a mere history of psychological episodes.

According to Richard McNally, PhD, a clinical psychologist at Harvard University:

“Certain disorders such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and autism fit the biological model in a very clear-cut sense.”

If you have biological indicators from dissections and imaging scans, you have more evidence that connects a disorder with a behavior.

Which disorders have the necessary elements?

While we don’t know the absolute and irrefutable causes of many mental illnesses, we do have evidence that some are more rooted in biology than others.

Voluntary intoxication doesn’t cut it.  Neither do pedophilia or pyromania, which are considered strictly antisocial personality disorders and are linked to thoughts, emotions, and behaviors and not dysfunctions of the brain.

People with psychosis have a skewed sense of reality. They are plagued by delusions and hallucinations that can severely impact their behavior. People with severe depression, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia often suffer from psychosis. It has many possible causes rooted in biology including tumors, cysts, dementia, and stroke.

Those suffering from severe depression experience constant feelings of sadness or apathy. It affects how they feel, think, and react to many aspects of life. In some cases, like postpartum depression, victims can suffer from delusions and hallucinations. Chemical imbalances, changes in genes, and traumatic events are all possible causes.

Mania or bipolar disorder is associated with abnormally elevated moods that can lead to unpredictable behavior and impaired judgement. The severity of the disorder is determined by how fervent and incapacitating the abnormal moods are. Scientists haven’t discovered a single cause for bipolar disorder, but they’ve found compelling evidence that genetics and brain structure might play a role.

People with anxiety disorders suffer from anxiety that exceeds normal functional levels. They are unable to control it and it subsequently controls them. Post traumatic stress disorder is a type of anxiety disorder. While it’s triggered by an environmental trauma, some say genetics might play a major role in susceptibility.

Andrea Yates was suffering from postpartum psychosis when she murdered her children by drowning them. She was convicted at first, but her long, undeniable history of mental illness, attempted suicides, and extensive medical records led to a reversed decision that she was not guilty by reason of insanity.

Advances in Detection

There isn’t a test for detecting mental illness as finite as a blood test or an X-ray, but scientists are working on it. The idea is to prove that the mind and brain are one and the same and that all mental processes are brain processes. The brain is a biological organ so mental illness must have a testable, biological component and explanation. This would provide that solid link and evidence that forensic psychologists everywhere would cheer for.

Thomas R. Insel, MD, director of the National Institute of Mental Health, doesn’t think mental illnesses should be treated any differently from other chronic illnesses. He says,

“The only difference here is that the organ of interest is the brain instead of the heart or pancreas. But the same basic principles apply.”

Insel argues that EKGs and CT images allow us to explore the heart in ways unthinkable 100 years ago, and that similar breakthroughs could be coming down the pike for the brain. Advancements are already being made in neuroimaging that enable studies of brain structure and function. Positron emission tomography (PET), single-photon emission computer tomography (SPECT), and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) get us as close as we can possibly get to peering into the brain. Using this imaging, scientists have been able to make possible connections between brain pathways and mental disorders. They’ve also uncovered the functioning of previously mysterious brain regions.

The video below shows how scientists are also making waves in understanding how brain circuits might lead to mental illness.

Solving the Rubik’s Cube

Every advancement in detecting biological clues for mental illness would provide more evidence and substantial links for criminal cases involving people who are mentally ill.

With every advancement we make in solving the brain’s mysteries, another piece of the billion-square Rubik’s cube clicks into place. Earlier, I called the brain one of anatomy’s cruelest jokes because it doesn’t quite understand itself. But just like a real Rubik’s cube, even seemingly unsolvable puzzles can be cracked. Just because we don’t understand all of the intricate workings of our brains now, doesn’t mean we won’t ever. If any entity in the world is able to figure out the human brain, it’s the wondrous human brain itself.

Resources

Primary

APA: The Roots of Mental Illness

NIH: Brain Basics

APA: Assessing the Evidence of a Link Between Mental Illness and Violent

 Additional

Psychology Today: The Insanity Defense

WebMD: The Brain and Mental Illness

ABA: Criminal Justice Section Standards: Mental Health

Find Law: Current Application of the Insanity Defense

BrainFacts: Understanding Mental Disorders as Circuit Disorders

Ashley Bell

Ashley Bell communicates about health and wellness every day as a non-profit Program Manager. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Business and Economics from the College of William and Mary, and loves to investigate what changes in healthy policy and research might mean for the future. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Brain Science Tells Us About the Insanity Defense appeared first on Law Street.

I’m sort of a walking stereotype. I have my phone in my hand at all times, I sleep with it in my bed even though I know that’s bad, and I’m constantly checking my texts, social media, and email. And that’s never really bothered me — it seems normal to me. I am used to being accessible essentially 24/7. I think that’s a norm that a lot of us Americans have gotten used to, and I doubt that that’s going to change, but apparently some of our European friends have started rejecting the concept of 24/7 connectivity.

Germany is considering a law to ban work-related emails after hours. The potential legislation is being pushed by labor unions, and recently the German Labor Minister Andrea Nahles ordered a study to look into the negative effects of work-related stress. While that study isn’t done yet, and legislation won’t even be proposed until those findings are released, Nahles stated,

There is an undeniable relationship between constant availability and the increase of mental illness. We have commissioned the Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health to work out whether it is possible to set load thresholds. We need universal and legally binding criteria.

Germany actually isn’t the first country to consider a late-night work email ban. Earlier this spring there were rumors that France had passed a similar law. France’s restrictions on work are actually very interesting already. Most workers are limited to a 35-hour work week. There’s actually no law restricting work emails after business hours, but there was an agreement signed earlier this year with some unions and employers agreeing to not contact employees outside of work hours.

So, if Germany and France are considering these email restrictions, will something similar ever make it to the U.S.? Nah, probably not.

A lot of it has to do with German and French culture in comparison to American. For many, the dominating idea in the United States is that the more you work, the more productive you are. Often employees who stay late are viewed as going the extra mile, while those who rush out the door at 5:00 are not as valued. But what a lot of people forget is that more work doesn’t necessarily mean more productivity.

The culture in nations like Germany and France is different though. In those countries, needing to stay after to finish your work creates the impression that you’re not productive enough during the day to finish your work in the time allotted. Thomas C. Kohler, a German legal expert explained, saying:

With Germans, while they’re at work, they only work — you’ll rarely hear a radio in the background. They consider it a sign of inefficiency if you cannot complete a day’s work in that day. So if you’re staying late at the office, it would often be regarded as a sign of your inability to get the work done.

So while some of our peer nations have shorter work weeks and are now moving toward no work emails after hours, I doubt it’s going to happen in the United States anytime soon. It would require too big of a cultural shift, and we Americans are just a little too attached to our smartphones.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Shreyans Bhansali via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Germany Considers Ban on After Hours Work Emails appeared first on Law Street.

The transition from teenage years to adulthood can be a stressful shift for many people. Making decisions that shape their future and becoming more self-sufficient can be made even more challenging with mental illness. Young adults between 18 and 25 have higher rates of mental illness and substance use disorder than adults 26 years of age and older. Some argue that rates of mental illness in contemporary young adults can be attributed in part to advancements in technology. By actively participating in social media, many of today’s youth compare themselves to their perceptions of their peers as modeled online. According to Larkin Callaghan of the 2×2 Project, a public health science site, teenagers especially “now rely so much on external and immediate gratification, social status and image, and the superficial gain they get from social media that they are forgoing values that contribute to a sound internal life.”

Existing data on mental illnesses in young Americans exposes the unfortunate reality that a significant portion face significant challenges.

• Nearly 6.4 million people aged 18 to 25 had mental illness, representing almost one in five young adults in America.
• 10.6 million people in 2012 reported an unmet need for mental health care.

Even though adolescents and young adults are extremely vulnerable to mental health problems, many go without proper treatment services. These clinical interventions are imperative in supporting the transition to a healthy adulthood while minimizing damage to the individual. During this formative period it is important to reduce the negative consequences and promote positive mental health awareness. Read on to understand what is being done about mental illness in young Americans.

Depression

There are a vast amount of mental illnesses that people may suffer from, and often an individual may have more than one at a time. Everyone is not affected the same way by the same disease, and there is not a one-size-fits-all cure. The following is only a glimpse into depression, one of the more common illnesses affecting young adults.

It was once believed that children could not suffer from depression. If a teen were to show symptoms, they were written off as being moody and that it was a normal part of the growing-up experience, but we now know that that is certainly not the case. Although the signs of depression may differ from those of depressed adults, young adults are susceptible to this illness as well.

According to the National Alliance on Mental Health, approximately 11 percent of adolescents have a depressive disorder by age 18. For both girls and boys aged 10 to 19 years, depression is the predominant cause of illness. It is more common for girls to have depression as compared to boys; twice as many girls as boys are diagnosed.

One of the most tragic results of depression is suicide. Behind traffic accidents and deaths from HIV/AIDS, suicide is the third most common cause of death for people aged 15-24. Depression is not the sole cause of suicide, which is the result of many complex factors. Ninety percent of those who commit suicide are diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder. While more females than males are diagnosed with depression, there are four male suicides for every female suicide.

• It is estimated that there are eight to 25 attempted suicides for every death.
• One out of 10 adolescents aged 16 to 17 had major depressive episodes in the past year, and three quarters of these adolescents were female.
• 67 percent of young adults with mental illness do not receive treatment.

Policies

In an attempt to help those suffering with mental illnesses the government has sponsored various agencies and policies to focus on mental health reform.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration

In 1992 the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration (SAMHSA) was created within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The mission of the agency is to lessen the impact of mental illness and substance abuse on the American people. SAMHSA makes services, information, and research more accessible.

SAMHSA has an annual budget of $3 billion, with one third devoted to mental health and the remaining two thirds for substance abuse prevention and treatment programs. The grants distributed to states by this agency serve as the main source of funding for public substance abuse and mental health treatment, usually through community mental health centers.

One of the ways SAMHSA has helped those with mental illnesses is by funding the National Child Traumatic Stress Network (NCTSN). The mission of NCTSN is to provide access to treatment and care to children who have been exposed to traumatic events.

The reason SAMHSA provides so many resources is that the agency acts on the assumption that prevention works, treatment is effective, and that people can recover from substance use and mental disorders

Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act of 2013

Introduced in the House of Representatives in December 2013 by Representative Tim Murphy, the Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act “fixes the nation’s broken mental health system by focusing programs and resources on psychiatric care for patients & families most in need of services.” As of July 2014 the bill has 94 co-sponsors; 59 Republicans and 35 Democrats, but has yet to be signed into law.

The Subcommittee on Health investigated the federal mental-health systems and worked with advocacy groups, professionals, and families. The bill has numerous proposals, such as:

• Creating an Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use Disorders within the HHS. The Assistant Secretary will direct and supervise the Administrator of SAMHSA.
• The Assistant Secretary will also establish a National Mental Heath Policy Laboratory to: 1) collect information from grantees; 2) evaluate and distribute to grantees the best practices and services delivery models.
• Direct the Assistant Secretary and the HHS Secretary to, “award planning grants to enable up to 10 states to carry out 5-year demonstration programs to improve the provision of behavioral health services by federally qualified community behavioral.”
• Medicaid would be amended to forbid a state medical assistance plan from barring payment for same-day primary care service or mental health service to an individual at a federally qualified health center or community behavioral health center.
• Prescription drugs used to treat mental health disorders would be covered by Medicare.

Strengthening Mental Health in Our Communities Act of 2014

Sponsored by Congressman Rob Barber, the Strengthening Mental Health in Our Communities Act of 2014 would create a White House office on Mental Health Policy in the Executive Office. As of July 2014, the bill has been referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations. The President would appoint a Director who would be charged with many duties including:

• Monitoring Federal activities with regard to mental health, serious mental illness, and serious emotional disturbances.
• Making recommendations to the HHS Secretary.
• Reviewing the Federal budgets on mental health services.
• Work with NGEs, state and local government to improve community-based mental health services.
• Annually updating and developing a summary of advancements in serious emotional disturbances and mental illnesses research.

Affordable Care Act

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has made it somewhat less challenging for young people to receive mental health care. Federal health law now requires insurance companies to extend the same amount of coverage for mental health as a surgical or medical treatment would receive. Also, young people can remain on their parents’ insurance until they are 26 years old. If they do not stay on their parents’ insurance they are able to receive low-cost coverage through federal or state exchanges.

Influence of Technology

Technology is both a blessing and a curse to those with mental illness. By continuously being surrounded by technology, the brain is less able to unwind and de-stress. Excessive use of technology can lead to a feeling of isolation, and over-use of social media sites such as Facebook can promote narcissism. Users depend on others ‘sharing’ and ‘liking’ their posts to receive superficial gratification. Displaying individual success has taken priority over working with others to better the community.

However, advancements in technology are a practical way to provide people living with mental illness with helpful resources. It is now easier for individuals to quickly reach healthcare providers and find supportive online communities. By having care readily available, a greater portion of the population is able to receive treatment and support.

Apps, such as CBTReferee, are an example of this pioneering technology. CBTReferee allows users to catalog their thoughts as they occur, making them able to monitor flawed thinking. It is then easier for the person to evaluate and assess if their thoughts are unrealistic, unfair, or untrue.

BellyBio Interactive Breathing is a smartphone application aimed at helping those with anxiety and stress. The app generates soothing music and monitors breathing patterns while guiding the user through deep breathing exercises.

Conclusion

Mental illnesses disproportionately affects young Americans. By finding proper treatment. either through government programs or private care facilities, individuals with mental illnesses can be supported and managed in a healthy way.

Resources

Primary

Congress: H.R. 3717

Congress: Cosponsors: H.R.3717

HHS: Administration Issues Final Mental Health and Substance use Order Disorder Parity Rules

Congress: H.R.4574 – Strengthening Mental Health in Our Communities Act of 2014

World Health Organization: WHO Calls for Stronger Focus on Adolescent Health

Additional

SAMHSA: Serious Mental Health Challenges among Older Adolescents and Young Adults

2×2 Project: The Declining Mental Health of Millennials: Is Depression the New Normal?

Psych Central: The Many Problems with the Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act

NCTSN: National Child Traumatic Stress Network

SAMHSA: Who We Are

NAMI: Depression in Children and Teens

American Foundation for Suicide Prevention: Facts About Suicide and Depression

CBTReferee: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

Alex Hill

Alex Hill studied at Virginia Tech majoring in English and Political Science. A native of the Washington, D.C. area, she blames her incessant need to debate and write about politics on her proximity to the nation’s capital.

The post Mental Illness in Young Americans appeared first on Law Street.

Tucson. Aurora. Newtown. What did these shootings have in common? The weapon and the ammunition. Or the types at least. Semi-automatic firearms allow the shooter to fire as fast as his finger can pull the trigger. Pair one of those with oversized ammunition magazines and he is capable of causing unthinkable damage in a matter of minutes. Rachel Maddow highlighted the correlation between the capacity of the ammunition magazine with the duration of the shooting spree and how many people are shot. But New Jersey Governor Chris Christie doesn’t seem to understand this correlation in the gun debate — that’s why he vetoed a bill that would limit the size of magazines.

For that, I am furious. Personally, I choose not to remember the names of the monsters who committed these acts because they should not be granted notoriety for their crimes — that would only make their twisted dreams come to fruition. We must pay attention to and deal with the issue at hand: mental illness and access to weaponry. I am no cheerleader for the NRA but I do believe in the right to bear arms. For self protection and even *shudder* hunting, we cannot deny our fellow countrymen (the sane ones) these rights.

Can we compromise?

Both sides are extreme, but I think we could come to an agreeable compromise. But not Gov. Christie, he’s definitely not on board with that. In his eyes we either abolish the Second Amendment entirely, or we continue allowing 15-round magazines to be produced and accessible to the armed public. Last week Christie vetoed a bill that would limit the size of gun magazines to ten rounds. This bill was petitioned by two families who lost children at the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting. Christie avoided them, even when they personally delivered the petition to the governor’s office. He denied them, point blank, period. And this was his weak defense:

So are we saying then that the ten children on the clip that they advocate for, that their lives are less valuable? If you take the logical conclusion of their argument, you go to zero. Because every life is valuable. And so why ten? Why not six, why not two, why not zero? Why not just ban guns completely?

This is a joke…right? I mean, if we can’t save five people in the next shooting, we should just let all 15 victims get shot because everyone’s life is equally valuable. Yeah, that totally makes sense. What’s the big deal about five bullets?

Size matters

The heroine of the Tucson story is a woman who bravely tackled the shooter in the moments when he ceased fire. He was equipped with a magazine that held more than double the standard amount of rounds (15). When the shooter paused to refill his Glock with another 33-round magazine, Patricia Maisch, then 61, wrestled the ammo from him while a few men threw the shooter to the ground. The number of victims from that shooting could have been fewer if he had had to reload sooner.

The same goes for the 2012 Aurora movie theater shooting. That shooter had a drum magazine capable of carrying 100 rounds attached to his AR-15 rifle. Could you imagine how the number of victims from that massacre could have been reduced if he were forced to reload about six times? Christie obviously cannot because that would be favoritism, or something.

Most importantly, I’d like to point out the difference this would have made at the Newtown shooting. The shooter in this case was armed with three different weapons and unfathomable amounts of ammunition, which he carried on his body. This guy came from a family with a long history of love for guns. He grew up with that whole culture and was granted access to guns, despite his Aspergers. The Daily Beast described the frightening amount of weaponry the shooter was armed with that day:

At the school, he emptied three magazines completely, leaving his 26 victims with as many as 11 gunshot wounds. Either because his weapon jammed or because he was overexcited, he ejected three more magazines when they still had 10, 11, and 13 rounds, respectively.

All told, he expended 154 rounds, killing 20 small children and 6 adults. The Bushmaster had one round in the chamber and 14 rounds in the magazine when he took his own life with one of two handguns he carried. A shotgun with two magazines containing 70 rounds was found in the black Honda he parked in the fire lane at the school entrance.

All that gore occurred in about five minutes. He could not have caused that many deaths in so little time with smaller magazines. How can Christie try to defend his veto with such illogical banter, to the parents of the victims of this shooting? Christie says it’s just a fundamental disagreement, though how his argument could be valid in any reality I do not understand. If the decision were up to you and you could choose between the hypothetical death of 15 children or 10 children, what would you do?

—

Natasha Paulmeno (@natashapaulmeno) 

Featured image courtesy of [Eugene Smith via Flickr]

Natasha Paulmeno

Natasha Paulmeno is an aspiring PR professional studying at the University of Maryland. She is learning to speak Spanish fluently through travel, music, and school. In her spare time she enjoys Bachata music, playing with her dog, and exploring social media trends. Contact Natasha at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Thanks to Governor Christie the Gun Debate Just Reached a New Low appeared first on Law Street.

Childhood and adult obesity is highly reported as a growing epidemic in the United States, yet less often do we hear of the negative psychological and physical ramifications of eating disorders. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, anorexia nervosa is the most fatal mental disorder, “[with] an estimated mortality rate of around 10 percent.” According to the National Eating Disorder Association, “20 million women and 10 million men [in the United States] suffer from a clinically significant eating disorder at some time in their life.” Although these types of disorders may not always be obvious, they are taking a toll on many young Americans who suffer in silence until it is too late.

What is an eating disorder?

An eating disorder is a life consuming mental illness that forces an individual to consciously diet or consume to an extreme, detrimental point. People who are affected by an eating disorder constantly obsess over calories, food, and their body weight. In the case of anorexia, the person limits his or her calorie intake to an extremely low and unhealthy number and adheres to a strict diet only consisting of “safe” foods. An individual with bulimia binges until he or she is uncomfortably full, then purges by vomiting. These disorders cause serious physical and psychological damage and can ultimately result in death. They are fueled by personal angst, trauma, and are essentially a way to cope with negative feelings, including personality disorders such as Obsessive Compulsive and extreme perfectionist tendencies. Eating disorders go beyond the surface desire of wanting to be thin. If left untreated through cognitive therapy and support, eating disorders will progressively consume the victim, until his or her entire life revolves around appeasing this internally violent illness.

What is a Pro-Ana/Mia website?

A Pro-Ana/Mia website is a public forum on which people, the majority of whom are women, with eating disorders share tips for maintaining an anorexic or bulimic lifestyle. Members share diet, beauty, and fitness tips that revolve around the theme of being thin. Discussions are not all illogical, yet the majority of them are fueled by the intense desire to remain in control, with the ultimate goal of reaching the most emaciated state possible. The sites often feature photographs of extremely thin people whose bones protrude and bodies that appear sick and gaunt. According to Children’s Mercy Hospital and Clinics, “there are now over 400 pro-ana/mia websites.” These sites encourage people to embrace their disorders as a lifestyle and assure victims that they are not abnormal or alone in their choice to live with an eating disorder. They promote and enhance the typically negative image that eating disorders support. Woman offer each other support to fuel the disorder, continuously telling it that the body is not (and never will) be thin enough. According to the National Association of Anorexia Nervosa and Associated Disorders characteristics of a pro-ana site include:

• The glamorization/idolization of images of emaciated or very thin individuals

• The implication that food and weight are the enemy

• Encouragement and teaching of dangerous eating disorder behaviors

• Promotion of thinness at any cost, denial of the seriousness of the illness

• Insistence that eating disorders are choices rather than illnesses

• Attempts to mask toxicity by being exclusive and elite

What the investigative report below on the dangers of pro-anorexic (pro-ana) and pro-bulimia (pro-mia) websites.

Do Pro-Ana/Mia Websites constitute free speech?

Eating disorders continue to carry a negative connotation despite their increasing popularity among teens and young women. This doesn’t stop women from openly spilling their diet and exercise secrets, no matter how extreme and unhealthy. The pro-ana maxim is “thinspiration.” Girls motivate one another to maintain their eating disorders and are virtually assisting each other in a prolonged suicide.

This information is accessible to children. Girls mature faster than boys and are susceptible to the influence of their peers as early as the age of eight. If curiosity about weight loss becomes appealing, the individual has this controversial information right at her fingertips. Proponents of the movement feel that if these websites are not censored they will continue to corrupt youth and increase eating disorders among younger generations.

Watch the video below of four recovered women sharing the harm Pro-ana/mia websites can inflict on someone struggling with an eating disorder.

According to Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Right, “[The right of freedom of expression may] be subject to certain restrictions…For the protection…of public order or of public health or morals.”  Pro-Ana/Mia websites portray anorexia and bulimia in a positive light and increase the likelihood of individuals who view them developing an eating disorder. This could be considered a danger to the overall public health, and gives government the incentive to block or censor them.

Pro-Ana supporters argue that the “thinspiration” movement gives individuals the opportunity to gain support and share tips with others who are experiencing the same thing, yet all of the exchanges on these sites seem to be negative. People motivate one another by saying things like they need lose more weight, and giving them tips on how to achieve that dream state of being virtually weightless and emaciated. The sites lack any positive effect on the community or individuals suffering with an illness. Therefore, they have little to argue regarding their need to stay accessible to the general public or their effect on the community.

Case Study: Valerie Boyer’s Bill (Ban on Pro-Ana)

A short clip from the documentary about the pro-anorexia movement in France, and the legislation to make it illegal:

France passed legislation in 2008 outlawing the portrayal of extreme thinness in the media as a desirable or positive trait. Additionally, Valerie Boyer, a  right-wing member of the lower house of Parliament, created a bill to enforce the elimination of Pro-Ana websites. The bill called for media outlets to face potential fines and possible jail time if they embraced the message that emaciation and eating disorders are attractive. The bill did not pass, yet it helped to draw more attention to the issue and awareness in both France and the United States has been increasing since the proposal. In the United States, servers such as Yahoo have worked to ban several pro-anorexia websites from their server.

Case Study: Social Media Bans Pro-Ana

In an effort to stop the glamorization of eating disorders throughout social media, Instagram, Pinterest, and Tumblr all updated their policies in 2012 to ban some of the attention that pro-ana websites receive online. Tumblr issued a statement outlining its plan to eliminate blogs that actively promote self-harm. If a user types in a trigger word such as “anorexia” on Tumblr, instead of receiving diet tips or images of emaciated models, a message urging you to seek assistance will appear. On Pinterest, although pro-anorexia images still exist  upon searching “anorexia”, results are displayed below the following message:

“Eating disorders are not lifestyle choices, they are mental disorders that if left untreated can cause serious health problems or could even be life-threatening. For treatment referrals, information, and support, you can always contact the National Eating Disorders Association Helpline at 1-800-931-2237 or www.nationaleatingdisorders.org”

Although more passive in nature, this message is meant to urge the user to recognize the dangers of the disorder, and to seek professional support as oppose to the negative motivation from others who suffer from a similar illness.

Instagram issued a new policy, to eliminate the promotion of self-harm on Instagram. The policy reads:

“Don’t promote or glorify self-harm:

1. “While Instagram is a place where people can share their lives with others through photographs and videos, any account found encouraging or urging users to embrace anorexia, bulimia, or other eating disorders; or to cut, harm themselves, or commit suicide will result in a disabled account without warning. We believe that communication regarding these behaviors in order to create awareness, come together for support and to facilitate recovery is important, but that Instagram is not the place for active promotion or glorification of self-harm.”

Instagram does not follow through with its former ban. When searching “anorexia” on Instagram, results display a long list of users who share photos of their gaunt collarbones, protruding hips, and non-existent  thighs. One photo, under the user “anorexianervosa_depression,” reads:

“Call it a sickness, call it an obsession, I don’t care, I call it perfection.”

There have been petitions to eliminate “thinspiration” tags on Twitter, yet when searched several photographs of overtly thin thighs and tiny waists appear. On Facebook, pages such as “Anorexia Tips” are easily accessible to anyone with an account. To see how websites measured up to their policy proposals, Buzzfeed compiled a list of all of social media sites efforts to ban pro-ana, and graded them based on how effectively they have eliminated the “thinspiration” movement across the web. Most of the sites received a low grade, in that most of them still permit much of the pro-anorexia community’s antics and do little to stop the community from continuing to infiltrate the social media stream.

Users have discovered loopholes. The bans do not necessarily stop users from continuing to post pro-ana material; in order to remain accessible, users can simply use different taglines in order for the material to appear when searched.The only way to truly minimize the value of the “thinspiration” movement is for people to stop liking the material, then it will eventually fade away.

Social media platforms run into some problems when they ban one type of body fad and not others, such as body building. Any extreme body manipulation could be considered a dangerous mental illness, therefore singling out a specific movement could cause the networks freedom of speech problems. To consider one group more dangerous than another becomes constitutionally complicated in that one group should not be favored over the other if they all do pose a potential threat to society. Eating disorders can be a very subjective experience and the line between the sharing of a personal experience and advocating for a disease is very thin. If pro-ana sites were to be censored or banned, would people who are simply telling their story be penalized?

The battle to remove these sites rages on between concerned medical experts and parents; yet pro-ana reigns on as a form of freedom of speech, and will continue to taint the minds of eating-disordered individuals until they are stopped.

Resources

Primary

DHS of Iowa: Pro-Anorexia/Pro-Bulimia Websites: A Dangerous Influence

Additional

ANAD: Eating Disorders and the Internet

Sociology of Health and Illness: Pro-anorexia, weight-loss drugs and the internet: an ‘anti-recovery’ explanatory model of anorexia

The New York Times: French legislators approve law against Web sites encouraging anorexia and bulimia

About Kids Health: Starved for attention: pro-anorexia websites glorify eating disorders

Body Space Society: Banning Pro-ANA Websites? NOt a Good Idea, As Web Censorship Might Have a ‘Toothpaste Tube Effect’

CBS: Despite social media bans of “pro-ana” websites, pages persist

Huffington Post: Why Blocking ‘Pro-Ana’ Sites Is a Bad Idea

Johns Hopkins University: Study Examines Pro-Anorexia and Pro-Bulimia Websites

Eating Disorders Recovery Today: Call to Ban Pro-Ana Websites

The New York Times: Point, Shoot, Retouch and Label?

PBS: Fighting social media ‘thinspiration’ with messages of self-acceptance

ABC: Pro-Anorexia ‘Thinspiration’ Photos Shouldn’t Be Banned from Social Media

Huffington Post: Can Thinspiration Really Be #Banned From Instagram?

 Debate: Should pro-anorexia websites be censored?

—

Madeleine Stern (@M3estern) is a student at George Mason University majoring in Journalism and minoring in Theater. Her writing on solitary confinement inspired her to pursue a graduate degree in clinical counseling after graduation. Madeleine is an avid runner, dedicated animal lover, and a children’s ballet instructor. Contact Madeleine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Evelina Zachariou via Flickr]

Madeleine Stern

Madeleine Stern attended George Mason University majoring in Journalism and minoring in Theater. Her writing on solitary confinement inspired her to pursue a graduate degree in clinical counseling after graduation. Madeleine is an avid runner, dedicated animal lover, and a children’s ballet instructor. Contact Madeleine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bones Are (Not) Better: The Battle to Ban Pro-Ana Websites appeared first on Law Street.

Many prisons use solitary confinement as a mechanism to control their prison populations and minimize the threat of danger to other inmates and prison staff. Yet extreme isolation is an unnatural punishment and can cause severe psychological, or sometimes even physical, damage. The effectiveness and methods of solitary confinement has been debated since its modern day inception as a form of punishment in the 1800s, yet it was not until recent years that states began to question the constitutionality of the matter. As convicts, prisoners have little sympathy from the general population; yet there are arguments for the release of prisoners who are placed in solitary confinement for indefinite amounts of time and for non-violent reasons. The argument in favor of regulating or eliminating the age old method is that these people are being placed under “cruel and unusual” circumstances, and are being released back into society in an even worse condition than before they were incarcerated. As of 2013, the United States holds roughly 2.3 million inmates in federal, state, and local jails, 80,000 of which are in solitary confinement.

What is Solitary Confinement?

There are two main types of solitary confinement that are primarily used in the United States. Disciplinary solitary confinement is used to punish an inmate for a violation of minor jail rules or protocol; administrative solitary confinement is used to isolate dangerous prisoners from the rest of the prison population and staff. Often prisoners who are placed in the latter group will remain in Supermax cells for months to years, sometimes for an undetermined length of time.

Typically solitary confinement is reserved for the most threatening and aggressive inmates, so the conditions are not cozy. Cells are typically “80 feet [10 by 8 feet], not much larger than a king-size bed,”  and sometimes even smaller; they do not have any windows and the floors are hard concrete. The door is typically heavy metal and locks with massive bolts.  Prisoners are isolated for 23 hours out of the day, and receive one hour of heavily monitored recreational activity in another slightly larger cell. Meals are slid through a small space in the door so prisoners remain completely isolated even during meal times.The cell is left bare, so prisoners often resort to habitual pacing and sometimes create routines to mimic life outside of prison. Prisoners may receive an early release from the designated amount of time if they practice “good behavior” and attend classes to improve themselves.

 History of Solitary Confinement

Solitary Confinement is thought to have started in a Philadelphia jail in the 1800s. The Quakers felt that by placing criminals in isolation they would have time to read the Bible and repent for their sins. The original idea behind solitary confinement was to reform inmates, as opposed to violently punishing them.

The Invention of Solitary Confinement — The Eastern State Penitentiary:

Another early prison that used a form of solitary confinement was the New York jail, Auburn. There, the “Auburn System,” a method of punishment in which prisoners were required to do manual labor all day in silence before being sent off to solitary confinement for the remainder of the night, was developed. This system gained popularity in prisons across the country. During this time, Auburn and other prisons also used forms of torture as a punishment. One popular method was the “shower bath.” This consisted of placing a prisoner under a constant flow of an excessive and painful amount of water. The flood would beat them over the head, getting into their eyes and mouths, nearly drowning them. Sometimes the shock would cause prisoners to fall dead moments later.

Psychological Effects and Ethics

It is hard to think of people who have committed heinous crimes as actual people, yet putting them under such harsh conditions can be embarrassing, alarming, and disgusting. Many times inmates display suicidal tendencies and harm themselves with makeshift weapons. Others resort to odd and erratic behaviors such as rubbing feces on themselves, pacing mindlessly, or cutting themselves. If solitary confinement is supposed to teach a lesson, it may be counterintuitive to its original purpose. Prisoners who are placed in solitary confinement will experience several psychological and physical effects of being in isolation for an extended period of time. According to Frontiers in Psychology, “One’s own existence is something that one experiences in the kinds of pragmatic projects that one shares with others.” When deprived of the basic human need of socialization for long enough, people begin to display mentally unstable and even insane behaviors.

Prisoners in solitary confinement may begin experiencing:

Visual and auditory hallucinations

Hypersensitivity to noise and touch

Insomnia and paranoia

Uncontrollable feelings of rage and fear

Distortions of time and perception

Increased risk of suicide

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)

The development of crippling obsessions

When prisoners do not experience any interactions with other people they begin to lose a sense of reality. Their internal thoughts become a blur with the external world, which they have ceased to experience. Not only is this inhumane, but it also defeats the purpose of punishing the guilty. Integrating the prisoner back into society becomes more challenging, and they become a product of isolation. This is not only detrimental to the individual, but also society.

According to International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, in 1890 the United States Supreme Court  began to note the inhumane and damaging effects that solitary confinement has on the prisoners:

“A considerable number of prisoners […] became violently insane;  other still, committed suicide, while those who stood the ordeal better were not generally reformed and in most cases did not recover sufficient mental activity to be any subsequent service to the community.”

ABCNews personality Dan Harris voluntarily spends 48 hours in solitary confinement:

Prisoners’ Rights

The Eighth Amendment includes the cruel and unusual punishment clause and serves as the basis for civil rights advocates’ arguments against the use of solitary confinement in American prisons. The fact that prisoners have little to no human contact, let alone see daylight for months to years, could be considered cruel and unusual. The argument that solitary confinement violates a prisoner’s constitutional rights prevails as the center controversy for advocates and courts. While incarcerated, prisoners are provided with medical and mental services, although whether they are adequate or not is debatable, and many cases regarding health care and general prison conditions have been brought to the forefront within the last 20 years.

To view the document outlining prisoner’s medical, dental, and mental health rights click here.

Case Study: Pelican State Bay Prison  (Ashker v. Brown)

The case Ashker v. Brown was sparked by a  2011 hunger strike led by prisoners at Pelican State Bay Prison in Crescent City, California. The strike drew attention to the unpalatable conditions that prisoners in solitary confinement experience. In an extended effort in May 2012, the  Center for Constitutional Rights filed a lawsuit against Pelican State Bay Prison for allegedly violating the Eighth Amendment as well as the Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment.  Many prisons lack adequate medical care, and prisoners are denied an in-depth review of their cases before being placed in solitary confinement.

Case Study: Nicole Guerrero v. Wichita County

Pregnant inmate Nicole Guerrero was placed in solitary confinement in a Texas jail in 2012. While in ‘the hole’ she began to experience excruciating pain and intense cramps due to labor. The medical staff at the prison reportedly ignored her for hours. She was forced to give birth alone, and when the prison medical staff finally came to the scene the baby was dead due to the umbilical cord being wrapped around its neck. This case supports the argument noting the lack of medical attention prisoners in solitary confinement receive, and brings states closer to regulating the controversial practice.

Peoples v. Fischer

In June 2012, the New York City Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on behalf of prisoner Leroy Peoples. Peoples spent three years in solitary confinement for filing false legal documents. Violating any of the codes that the prison regards as against protocol has the potential to send a prisoner into solitary. According to the Civil Liberty Union, “only 16 percent of isolation sentences from 2007 to 2011 were for assault or weapons.” Solitary confinement served the original purpose of protecting staff and other inmates from potentially dangerous prisoners; now prison systems are abusing the extreme form of punishment, and overusing solitary confinement for reasons other than violence. Another issue that the NYCLU addresses is the fact that solitary confinement is used as a source of punishment for juveniles, pregnant inmates, and the mentally ill. The Union argues that this is inhumane and more permanently damaging to these more vulnerable groups of inmates. Currently, the outcome of the case is in reconsideration, and “if the process fails, the NYCLU will resume litigation.”

Click here to see the Institutional Laws of Conduct.

Innovation in the Prison System

Recently Colorado signed into legislation a law that bans prisons from placing mentally ill inmates in long-term solitary confinement. According to the Wall Street Journal, “Maine and New Mexico have taken steps to reduce their use of solitary confinement, and Nevada and Texas are studying the issue.” Similarly in a document, New York has decided to “remove  youth, pregnant inmates and developmentally disabled and intellectually from extreme isolation.”

Click here to see New York’s agreement to reform solitary confinement in the prison system.

Some opponents of the practice suggest alternative methods; instead of placing inmates in solitary confinement,  they could be sent to a mental-health care unit within prison where the individual can be treated instead of punished. Of course, this idea receives strong opposition, yet New York has decided to enact a version of it.

Resources

Journal of Constitutional Law: Prolonged Solitary Confinement and the Constitution

NYCLU: Peoples v. Fischer

Correctional Association of New York: Shining Our Spotlight on Auburn Correctional Facility

CNN: Solitary Confinement: 29 Years in a Box

PBS: Solitary Confinement and the U.S. Prison System

Pennsylvania Prison Society: Violence in the Supermax: A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

Washington Post: Va. Prisons’ Use of Solitary Confinement is Scrutinized

The New York Times: New York State in Deal to Limit Solitary Confinement

Center for Constitutional Rights: Ashker v. Brown

NYCLU: Lawsuit Secures Historic Reforms to Solitary Confinement

CNN: Texas Wom Claims She Gave Birth Alone in Jail, Baby Died

Wall Street Journal: Colorado Becomes Latest to Back Ban on Solitary Confinement of Mentally Ill

—

Madeleine Stern

Madeleine Stern attended George Mason University majoring in Journalism and minoring in Theater. Her writing on solitary confinement inspired her to pursue a graduate degree in clinical counseling after graduation. Madeleine is an avid runner, dedicated animal lover, and a children’s ballet instructor. Contact Madeleine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Evolution of Solitary Confinement in the United States appeared first on Law Street.

This week I’m beginning to lose faith in my fellow Americans. Between New York mother Janelle Ambrosia verbally harassing a black man and the release of not one but two videos of Justin Bieber making n***** jokes, I literally can’t even.

Why are these instances related? Because both Ambrosia and Bieber are setting examples for young, moldable minds. Even worse, when given the opportunity to apologize, Ambrosia refused and tried to use bipolar disorder as a scapegoat. On the other hand, Bieber said he had to take responsibility for his actions, and seemed to show remorse for his four- and five-year old mistakes.

* [This video contains vulgar language, definitely NSFW]

Though Buzzfeed recently classified Justin Bieber as my “arch nemesis,” I must say I was glad to see a remorseful reaction out of the celeb. Bieber and his manager, Scooter Braun, both posted images to Instagram conveying messages of forgiveness for grave mistakes. In an interview with The Hollywood Report, Bieber made an important point:

“I just hope that the next kid that age who doesn’t understand the power of these words does not make the same mistake I once made years ago.”

By no means are Bieber’s words forgivable or justifiable. But he makes a point that Ambrosia could stand to learn from. While the mother of two relentlessly screamed at the man, self-identified as Narvel, she set the example for her children that calling a black person the n-word is acceptable. Ambrosia received a wide array of backlash on Twitter:

@JaneAmby You say you’re apologizing now, but we all know you’re going to do it again. Great way to set an example for your kids. -_-

— Bradley James (@bradleysgfx) June 4, 2014

The mother of the year award goes to..*drum roll* @JaneAmby

— Matt (@akaMattikins) June 6, 2014

No room for hate

This is the 21st century people! How is it possible that someone can so blatantly charge at someone, hurling insults and threats, solely based on the color of his skin? Here at Law Street, we do not let this behavior slide; we called out One Direction’s media gaffe as well. But I digress. In my opinion, Ambrosia committed three terrible blunders:

1. Using filthy, racist language in front of her children.
2. Refusing to apologize for her unwarranted verbal attack.
3. Blaming the situation on mental health.

I could go on about racism, but the bottom line is that in this day and age, racism is simply unacceptable. I will never acknowledge stereotypes as accurate or valid descriptions of certain people. Each person is individually characterized by his or her upbringing and personal experiences, nothing else. The worst part of Ambrosia’s and Bieber’s public displays of racism are the children who look up to them, who will think n***** is an acceptable word to use, and who may keep racism alive.

I could not stop thinking about Ambrosia’s attack on Narvel after watching the video for the first time. Needless to say, I watched the video at least ten more times and each time my blood boiled. Then she had the nerve to blame this entire situation on bipolar disorder. With mental health being such a hot topic right now, I think Ambrosia just dug herself a deeper hole. Mental illness is not to be taken lightly, nor does it make her any less guilty.

I hope Ambrosia takes a page out of Bieber’s book. Whether he was sincere or not, we will never know. As for Ambrosia’s children, when they are older and can understand the backlash their mother received, let it be a lesson: racism is not to be taken lightly. There is a difference between self-protection and blatant hatefulness. And honestly, it takes more energy to hate someone than it does to keep walking.

So let us be reminded:

“If you have nothing nice to say, don’t say anything at all.”

—

Natasha Paulmeno (@natashapaulmeno)

Image courtesy of [Daniel Ogren via Flickr]

Natasha Paulmeno

Natasha Paulmeno is an aspiring PR professional studying at the University of Maryland. She is learning to speak Spanish fluently through travel, music, and school. In her spare time she enjoys Bachata music, playing with her dog, and exploring social media trends. Contact Natasha at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Racism Is Still Alive, Folks appeared first on Law Street.