The Maine judge who fought to keep people with mental illness from languishing in jail
Bangor Daily NewsJan 13, 2020
Last month, Mills stepped down from the
In 2004, Mills established the Co-Occurring Disorders Court in
In 2018, she turned her attention to improving the process for handling cases before they've reached a conclusion, after employees at the
Without spending extra money, Mills decided to set aside two days a month in
The result of the increased scrutiny and communication has been to reduce the period of time that ill defendants spend in jail.
Taking her lead,
In
What inspired your interest to create the Co-Occurring Disorders Court?
I remember reading an article once by a doctor who said the reason we can't cure cancer is because we keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result. And that's exactly what we were doing: sending people to jail, they got out, they committed crimes, they were arrested, they were convicted, we sent them to jail. It's not rocket science to realize that we can't keep doing that. It's morally wrong, and it doesn't make any fiscal sense or sense in terms of achieving better results.
What do you say to people who feel differently?
If you're talking to someone whose desire is simply to punish someone, you're probably not going to get very far. But I try to phrase it in a way that the person will understand: It's really in everyone's best interest to deal with the mental illness -- not just the defendants but the public at large.
Ultimately, sometimes I ask people, if you don't like what we're trying with treatment and medicine, what's your idea? Because it certainly hasn't been working what we've been doing since 1820, incarcerating people with mental illness and substance use disorders.
Why are people with acute mental illness more likely to languish in jail?
If a person who doesn't have a mental health problem commits a misdemeanor, their lawyer can argue [during their bail hearing], 'Well, his parents are willing to take him back,' or 'He's got a job,' and this, that and the other thing. And he's going to get out on bail. Often those arguments aren't available to a defense lawyer [so the defendant stays in jail].
Sometimes there's the issue of competency, and that has to be addressed. We've really streamlined [the competency evaluation process] in
Why is it called the languishing committee?
What exactly is "languishing"? We're not just talking about someone who's got a mental illness and is sitting in his cell. We're talking about people who stop eating, they won't wear clothes, who may be smearing feces all over the cell. They're howling, they won't take medicine, assuming the jail has that medicine on their protocol. It's a bad situation, certainly for the jail personnel, certainly for the defendant and for the other people who are in the jail.
Every case should be expedited. Every defendant has a right to a speedy trial. But these cases in particular? It's cruel to keep a person with mental illness incarcerated.
Do you have an example of how flagging these cases for a closer look changed a defendant's path through the justice system?
The case that sticks in my mind was a person who was being housed at the
That all happened about three months before this person was scheduled for a dispositional conference. All that time he would have been at the jail, and then who knows what would have happened. So it's really about communication.
Where do you run into the most obstacles finding options for defendants with mental illnesses so they don't stay in jail?
Housing is the hardest thing. Whether it's supported housing, a group home, whether it's just someplace to live, whether they can afford an apartment. It's the hardest nut to crack.
What solutions are beyond your power as a judge that would improve the delivery of justice for, specifically, people with mental illness? Whose responsibility is it to create them?
There's some legislation to get more crisis beds. That's what I meant about having the right people at the table. [State] Rep.
There are a lot of things that have no fiscal note. The mental health docket, no fiscal note. Languishing committee, no fiscal note. Actually, we opened the Co-Occurring Disorders Court, and we originally had no funding.
It's great to have, as I said, blue ribbon commissions and study panels and to apply for grants. But at some point, sometimes you've just got to do it yourself, without any money, and think differently and break down the silos. That's what's great about the languishing committee. Everyone we need is there.
It's a better alternative than keeping somebody at a jail that needs help, in my view. But the critics who say, "This is a person who needs a hospital"? They're correct.
A lawyer recently told me, "It's just a hospital in the middle of a state prison." Is that wrong?
There's no question it's a state prison. Where people -- there are locked cells, and there are guards. It's not the same as being in
Questions? Email mainefocus@bangordailynews.com.
___
(c)2020 the Bangor Daily News (Bangor, Maine)
Visit the Bangor Daily News (Bangor, Maine) at www.bangordailynews.com
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.