The University of Chicago Law School Faculty Blog: Harcourt: "The Mentally Ill, Behind Bars"

January 16, 2007

Harcourt: "The Mentally Ill, Behind Bars"

The Mentally Ill, Behind Bars
By Bernard E. Harcourt
The New York Times
January 15, 2007

LAST August, a prison inmate in Jackson, Mich. -- someone the authorities described as ''floridly psychotic'' -- died in his segregation cell, naked, shackled to a concrete slab, lying in his own urine, scheduled for a mental health transfer that never happened. Last month in Florida, the head of the state's social services department resigned abruptly after having been fined $80,000 and is facing criminal contempt charges for failing to transfer severely mentally ill jail inmates to state hospitals.

Ten days ago, the Supreme Court agreed to determine when mentally ill death row inmates should be considered so deranged that their execution would be constitutionally impermissible. The case involves a 48-year-old Navy veteran who is a diagnosed schizophrenic. In the decade leading up to the crime he was hospitalized 14 times for severe mental illness.

According to a study released by the Justice Department in September, 56 percent of jail inmates in state prisons and 64 percent of inmates across the country reported mental health problems within the past year.

Though troubling, none of this should come as a surprise. Over the past 40 years, the United States dismantled a colossal mental health complex and rebuilt -- bed by bed -- an enormous prison. During the 20th century we exhibited a schizophrenic relationship to deviance.

After more than 50 years of stability, federal and state prison populations skyrocketed from under 200,000 persons in 1970 to more than 1.3 million in 2002. That year, our imprisonment rate rose above 600 inmates per 100,000 adults. With the inclusion of an additional 700,000 inmates in jail, we now incarcerate more than two million people -- resulting in the highest incarceration number and rate in the world, five times that of Britain and 12 times that of Japan.

What few people realize, though, is that in the 1940s and '50s we institutionalized people at even higher rates -- only it was in mental hospitals and asylums. Simply put, when the data on state and county mental hospitalization rates are combined with the data on prison rates for 1928 through 2000, the imprisonment revolution of the late 20th century barely reaches the level we experienced at mid-century. Our current culture of control is by no means new.

The graph on the left -- based on statistics from the federal Census Bureau, Department of Health and Human Services and Bureau of Justice Statistics -- shows the aggregate rate of institutionalization per 100,000 adults in the United States from 1928 to 2000, as well as the disaggregated trend lines for mental hospitalization on the one hand and state and federal prisons on the other.

The numbers include only state and county mental hospitals. There were many more kinds of mental institutions at mid-century, ones for ''mental defectives and epileptics'' and the mentally retarded, psychiatric wards in veterans hospitals, as well as ''psychopathic'' and private mental hospitals. If we include residents of those facilities, from 1935 to 1963 the United States consistently institutionalized at rates well above 700 per 100,000 adults -- with highs of 778 in 1939 and 786 in 1955. It should be clear why there is such a large proportion of mentally ill persons in our prisons: individuals who used to be tracked for mental health treatment are now getting a one-way ticket to jail.

Of course, there are important demographic differences between the two populations. In 1937, women represented 48 percent of residents in state mental hospitals. In contrast, new prison admissions have consistently been 95 percent male. Also, the mental health patients from the 1930s to the 1960s were older and whiter than prison inmates of the 1990s.

But the graph poses a number of troubling questions: Why did we diagnose deviance in such radically different ways over the course of the 20th century? Do we need to be imprisoning at such high rates, or were we right, 50 years ago, to hospitalize instead? Why were so many women hospitalized? Why have they been replaced by young black men? Have both prisons and mental hospitals included large numbers of unnecessarily incarcerated individuals?

Whatever the answers, the pendulum has swung too far -- possibly off its hinges.

It would be naive, today, to address any of these questions without also considering the impact of imprisonment on crime. One of the most reliable studies estimates that the increased prison population over the 1990s accounted for about a third of the overall drop in crime that decade.

However, prisons are not the only institutions that seem to have this effect. In a recent study, I demonstrated that the rate of institutionalization -- including mental hospitals -- was a far better predictor of serious violent crime from 1926 to 2000 than just prison populations. The data reveal a robust negative relationship between overall institutionalization (prisons and asylums) and homicide. Preliminary findings based on state-level panel data confirm these results.

The effect on crime may not depend on whether the institution is a mental hospital or a prison. Even from a crime-fighting perspective, then, it is time to rethink our prison and mental health policies. A lot more work must be done before proposing answers to those troubling questions. But the first step is to realize that we have been wildly erratic in our approach to deviance, mental health and the prison.

Bernard E. Harcourt, a professor of law and criminology at the University of Chicago, is the author of Against Prediction: Profiling, Policing and Punishing in an Actuarial Age.

Posted at 04:58 PM in Harcourt, Bernard | Permalink

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Presently, I am working on the book, "American Roulette: the Red White and Blue of crime in America".

Homicide Charges For Corporations
One District Attorney with ten convictions, no losses, of
reckless homicide convictions against corporations.
But none of the people responsible.

WHAT IS "RED COLLAR CRIME?

They are white collar crimes when people die and there are usually no criminal charges against the "Corporate Executives", responsible (162). Such crimes are often "Cloaked in a Veil of Secrecy"(1), as documented in an article about Firestone tires and GM gas tanks (1). In these two instances alone (1), over 400 families took the out of court settlement in exchange for sealing the records. Allowing more American's to die, because they did not put a stop to it. They "sealed the records".

This is not just about "Corporate America".

American Roulette;
"Forget the revolver. We use products and services"
American Roulette - based on "Red Collar Crime"

Posted by: Toxic Reverend, Environmental Technologist | January 16, 2007 at 09:59 PM

Why the high rates of institutionalization followed by low rates?

Clearly, our notion of mental illness is both braoder and narrower than it once was. There was a time when "difficult" women were hospitalized, sometimes against their will, by the actions of their husbands and parents. Think Frances Farmers, whose memoir of the ordeal is quite moving. But today, with our culture of medication, nearly anyone with the blues or hyperactivity of any kind is being medicated.

It seems to me that the same skepticism that is raised against IQ studies can be and has been raised against the idea of mental illness. There is no easy way to say X is merely annoying behavior and Y is mental illness. Depression, addiction, "borderline" personalities, narcissism, and schizophrenia all exist on a continuum. For many people and personality types, mental illness is just an acute expression of eccentricities.

The whole concept of psychopathology overlaps with moral reasoning and the question of community mores. It's a murky question whether when science categorizes things--species, health vs. not healthy, rational vs. not rational--it's not really engaged in pure science because these judgments do not involved "falsifiable hypotheses" but rather classification decisions that are more metaphysical in nature. That is, science informs them but the judgmetns are not properly speaking "science" with all that such a conclusion entails.

The moral judgments of mental health taxonomy are hidden within notions of "functioning." Mental health definitions must, by necessity, be social. The extreme view "I'm OK, You Suck" cannot work, because so many mentally ill people do not only deny that they have a problem, they think so long as they are happy with themselves--whether as serial killers, living in their own feces or whatever--then your problem with them is totally irrelevant.

There must be a community based notion of mental health that is also respectful of individual difference. That community-based notion must not draw a false distinction between "science" and pedestrian reasoning about morality and values, because any notion of functioning must take into account the needs of the community, of parents, of children, of spouses, and the like. The old regime of forced institutionalization was fraught with abuse; at the same time, the new system, embracing a value-neutral notion that even mental illness itself might just be another "lifestyle" is a problem too. It's a problem because, at the end of the day, we as a community won't tolerate certain things, and truly violent and selfish people who hurt others will be locked up, whether in a prison or a hospital.

Psychology must transcend its pretention that it is a hard science, at one and the same time misunderstanding its own methods and devaluing the kinds of reasoning about functioning found in traditional moral and religious settings. Psychology, to grow, must become more secure. In this sense, its advice to individuals is good advice for the profession itself: grow up, consider other ways of doing things, develop compassion, and learn from the meta-fact that men and women have had to consider the hows and whys of how one another tick since social life began.

Posted by: Roach | January 18, 2007 at 03:36 PM