Thursday, July 26, 2012

Looking into the minds of killers


By Jeffrey Swanson, Special to CNN
updated 9:53 AM EDT, Wed July 25, 2012
The public gets its first glimpse of James Holmes, 24, the suspect in the Colorado theater shooting during his initial court appearance Monday, July 23. With his hair dyed reddish-orange, Holmes, here with public defender Tamara Brady, showed little emotion. He is accused of opening fire in a movie theater Friday, July 20, in Aurora, Colorado, killing 12 people and wounding 58 others. <a href='http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/21/us/gallery/colorado-mourning-victims/index.html' target='_blank'>More photos: Mourning the victims of the Colorado theater massacre</a>The public gets its first glimpse of James Holmes, 24, the suspect in the Colorado theater shooting during his initial court appearance Monday, July 23. With his hair dyed reddish-orange, Holmes, here with public defender Tamara Brady, showed little emotion. He is accused of opening fire in a movie theater Friday, July 20, in Aurora, Colorado, killing 12 people and wounding 58 others. More photos: Mourning the victims of the Colorado theater massacre
HIDE CAPTION
Colorado movie theater shooting
<<
<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
>
>>
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • People are asking what triggered the Aurora shooting
  • Jeffrey Swanson: Looking inside the killer's mind will not turn up the answer
  • He says most violence is not caused by a major psychiatric condition
  • Swanson: True "reasons" that motivated killer's terrible act may be unknowable
Editor's note: Jeffrey Swanson is a professor in psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Duke University's School of Medicine.
(CNN) -- A witness to the horrific shooting rampage in the Colorado movie theater called it "the longest minute" of his life. One can only imagine. But the second longest minute may be the waiting for someone -- the authorities, the pundits, the doctors -- to tell us "why" these killings happened. Police say James Holmes, a 24-year-old graduate student in a neurosciences program, called himself the Joker and rained merciless bullets on strangers watching a Batman movie. Why?
Already, the speculations are flooding in. There's a celebrity psychiatrist saying it was a "failure of empathy" likely rooted in the shooter's early life psychological pain. What about asking the accused shooter's parents? "Listen, these folks that are now flying to join their son in Colorado, if you were to ask them, 'What three things are you most sensitive about not telling people, about your family or your son's personal development, or the things that are most painful to relate' -- there's your answer."
Jeffrey Swanson
Jeffrey Swanson
Another psychiatrist thinks that people who commit crimes like this are "unfailingly unable to form satisfying sexual attachments, and their masculinity essentially gets replaced with their fascination for destruction."
Big Religion has also weighed in. "The product of pure evil ... a depraved individual taking his free will to the extreme," says the president of Focus on the Family. The head of the Southern Baptists commented that the incident "tells the truth about unbridled human sin."
They should all shut up. Let the police work. Let a competent clinician conduct a private evaluation. Let the professional reporters find out what really happened.
Suspect is a former camp counselor
What was the Colorado shooter's motive?
The mind of suspect James Holmes
On the face of it, a deliberate rampage to kill strangers is the act of a deviant consciousness of some kind. But we don't know whether the accused killer's mind may have been driven by acute symptoms of a psychiatric disorder that impairs thought and perception of reality, by a personality misshaped through a troubled past, or by something else entirely. We simply don't know.
What we do know, based on the best available scientific evidence on the link between violence and mental illness in populations, is that most violence is not caused by a major psychiatric condition like schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or depression. Psychiatric disorder accounts for only about 4% of violent behavior, across the spectrum from minor to serious assaultive acts. And the vast majority of people with serious mental illnesses do not behave violently.
If research on patterns of violence in populations tells us anything, it's that no single thing causes assaultive behavior. Even when serious psychopathology plays a role, it is almost never a sufficient explanation. Other variables -- personal background characteristics and life experience, features of the social environment, substance abuse -- all may interact to make violent acts statistically more likely. That makes it complicated to explain and very difficult to predict actions on an individual level.
After the fact, rare and appalling acts of violence somehow look predictable, and thus, preventable. It is natural to turn to the experts, but they always come up short. They are notoriously bad at forecasting even garden variety violence, to say nothing of finding the one-in-a-million would-be mass shooter.
When we total up the contributions of all the risk factors with known links to violent behavior, most of it is left unexplained. When we describe the common characteristics of mass shooters, we're left with a profile that fits tens of thousands of troubled young men who would never actually do such a senseless thing.
"When we describe the common characteristics of mass shooters, we're left with a profile that fits tens of thousands of troubled young men who would never actually do such a senseless thing."
Is Holmes a psychopath? The true "reasons" that motivated the terrible act of which he is accused may always remain obscure. But what should not be obscure is how easy it is for troubled young men legally to acquire a small arsenal of firearms in the United States. If Holmes hadn't been able to get his hands on the guns police say he used, this would be a different story .
People can disagree about whether 270 million firearms in private hands in the country is too many guns. But they should not disagree that 300,000 people dying from gunshots in the past decade is too many wasted lives. The notion of forbidding assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines -- machines specifically designed to kill multiple people in the twinkling of an eye -- is not about infringing the Second Amendment. It is about common sense and protecting the public. Such weapons were successfully legally banned in the United States from 1994 to 2004; they should be banned again.
Still, dangerous guns per se are not the only problem, and banning them is only part of the solution. We also need better means of identifying dangerous people who should not have access to guns.
Research shows that one of the highest risk times for violence in people who develop a psychotic illness is their first episode -- the period right before they establish any record with the formal mental health care system. Gun laws such as the federal Brady Act that are implemented through background record searches won't find these individuals. But even having a formal record of involuntary psychiatric hospitalization is no guarantee that the relevant information will be available at the point of purchase of a firearm.
In Colorado, only a tiny fraction (about 1%) of people who have gun-disqualifying mental health histories have been reported to the National Instant Check System, where they could be discovered in a routine background check of a prospective gun purchaser. A felony conviction is also supposed to disqualify people from buying a gun, but only 40% of murder suspects have such a previous record of conviction.
The present national moment of grief and soul searching should not become another occasion for oversimplifying the problem of gun violence and laying the blame on any one thing -- "it's the guns" or "it's untreated mental illness" or "it's the information system" or "it's the violent popular culture in society." It may be all of those things. We need to address all of the variables and come up with smart evidence-based policies. Looking inside the killer's head should not be the first place to start.
Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion

Tuesday, July 3, 2012

Poor Land in Jail as Companies Add Huge Fees for Probation


Cary Norton for The New York Times
Richard Earl Garrett is the lead plaintiff in a class action suit against the town of Harpersville, Ala. Mr. Garrett has spent a total of 24 months in jail and owes $10,000, all for traffic and license violations that began a decade ago.
  • FACEBOOK
  • TWITTER
  • GOOGLE+
  • EMAIL
  • SHARE
  • PRINT
  • REPRINTS
CHILDERSBURG, Ala. — Three years ago, Gina Ray, who is now 31 and unemployed, was fined $179 for speeding. She failed to show up at court (she says the ticket bore the wrong date), so her license was revoked.
The New York Times
Childersburg turned to the private sector for probation.
Cary Norton for The New York Times
Gina Ray still owes over $3,000, and potentially faces more jail time.

Readers’ Comments

"Who says we've lost our manufacturing economy? We still manufacture prisoners better than any other country in the world. "
Patricia, Pasadena, CA
When she was next pulled over, she was, of course, driving without a license. By then her fees added up to more than $1,500. Unable to pay, she was handed over to a private probation company and jailed — charged an additional fee for each day behind bars.
For that driving offense, Ms. Ray has been locked up three times for a total of 40 days and owes $3,170, much of it to the probation company. Her story, in hardscrabble, rural Alabama, where Krispy Kreme promises that “two can dine for $5.99,” is not about innocence.
It is, rather, about the mushrooming of fines and fees levied by money-starved towns across the country and the for-profit businesses that administer the system. The result is that growing numbers of poor people, like Ms. Ray, are ending up jailed and in debt for minor infractions.
“With so many towns economically strapped, there is growing pressure on the courts to bring in money rather than mete out justice,” said Lisa W. Borden, a partner in Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, a largelaw firm in Birmingham, Ala., who has spent a great deal of time on the issue. “The companies they hire are aggressive. Those arrested are not told about the right to counsel or asked whether they are indigent or offered an alternative to fines and jail. There are real constitutional issues at stake.”
Half a century ago in a landmark case, the Supreme Court ruled that those accused of crimes had to be provided alawyer if they could not afford one. But in misdemeanors, the right to counsel is rarely brought up, even though defendants can run the risk of jail. The probation companies promise revenue to the towns, while saying they also help offenders, and the defendants often end up lost in a legal Twilight Zone.
Here in Childersburg, where there is no public transportation, Ms. Ray has plenty of company in her plight. Richard Garrett has spent a total of 24 months in jail and owes $10,000, all for traffic and license violations that began a decade ago. A onetime employee of United States Steel, Mr. Garrett is suffering from health difficulties and is without work. William M. Dawson, a Birmingham lawyer and Democratic Party activist, has filed a lawsuit for Mr. Garrett and others against the local authorities and the probation company, Judicial Correction Services, which is based in Georgia.
“The Supreme Court has made clear that it is unconstitutional to jail people just because they can’t pay a fine,” Mr. Dawson said in an interview.
In Georgia, three dozen for-profit probation companies operate in hundreds of courts, and there have been similar lawsuits. In one, Randy Miller, 39, an Iraq war veteran who had lost his job, was jailed after failing to make child support payments of $860 a month. In another, Hills McGee, with a monthly income of $243 in veterans benefits, was charged with public drunkenness, assessed $270 by a court and put on probation through a private company. The company added a $15 enrollment fee and $39 in monthly fees. That put his total for a year above $700, which Mr. McGee, 53, struggled to meet before being jailed for failing to pay it all.
“These companies are bill collectors, but they are given the authority to say to someone that if he doesn’t pay, he is going to jail,” said John B. Long, a lawyer in Augusta, Ga., who is taking the issue to a federal appeals court this fall. “There are things like garbage collection where private companies are O.K. No one’s liberty is affected. The closer you get to locking someone up, the closer you get to a constitutional issue.”
The issue of using the courts to produce income has caught the attention of the country’s legal establishment. A recent study by the nonpartisan Conference of State Court Administrators, “Courts Are Not Revenue Centers,” said that in traffic violations, “court leaders face the greatest challenge in ensuring that fines, fees and surcharges are not simply an alternate form of taxation.”
J. Scott Vowell, the presiding judge of Alabama’s 10th Judicial Circuit, said in an interview that his state’s Legislature, like many across the country, was pressuring courts to produce revenue, and that some legislators even believed courts should be financially self-sufficient.
In a 2010 study, the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law examined the fee structure in the 15 states — including California, Florida and Texas — with the largest prison populations. It asserted: “Many states are imposing new and often onerous ‘user fees’ on individuals with criminal convictions. Yet far from being easy money, these fees impose severe — and often hidden — costs on communities, taxpayers and indigent people convicted of crimes. They create new paths to prison for those unable to pay their debts and make it harder to find employment and housing as well as to meet child support obligations.”
Most of those fees are for felonies and do not involve private probation companies, which have so far been limited to chasing those guilty of misdemeanors. A decade or two ago, many states abandoned pursuing misdemeanor fees because it was time-consuming and costly. Companies like Judicial Correction Services saw an opportunity. They charge public authorities nothing and make their money by adding fees onto the bills of the defendants.
Stephen B. Bright, president of the Southern Center for Human Rights, who teaches at Yale Law School, said courts were increasingly using fees “for such things as the retirement funds for various court officials, law enforcement functions such as police training and crime laboratories, victim assistance programs and even the court’s computer system.” He added, “In one county in Pennsylvania, 26 different fees totaling $2,500 are assessed in addition to the fine.”
Mr. Dawson’s Alabama lawsuit alleges that Judicial Correction Services does not discuss alternatives to fines or jail and that its training manual “is devoid of any discussion of indigency or waiver of fees.”
In a joint telephone interview, two senior officials of Judicial Correction Services, Robert H. McMichael, its chief executive, and Kevin Egan, its chief marketing officer, rejected the lawsuit’s accusations. They said that the company does try to help those in need, but that the authority to determine who is indigent rests with the court, not the company.
“We hear a lot of ‘I can’t pay the fee,’ ” Mr. Egan said. “It is not our job to figure that out. Only the judge can make that determination.” Mr. Egan said his company had doubled the number of completed sentences where it is employed to more than two-thirds, from about one-third, and that this serves the company, the towns and the defendant. “Our job is to keep people out of jail,” he said. “We have a financial interest in getting them to comply. If they don’t pay, we don’t get paid.”
Mr. Bright, of the Southern Center for Human Rights, said that with the private companies seeking a profit, with courts in need of income and with the most vulnerable caught up in the system, “we end up balancing the budget on the backs of the poorest people in society.”

Monday, July 2, 2012

California lawmakers pass historic foreclosure protections


  • Email
    Share
DeAun Tollefson protests foreclosures
DeAun Tollefson, whose home is in foreclosure, marches with others in Sacramento to protest home foreclosures(Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press / June 25, 2012)
SACRAMENTO — California lawmakers have passed historic legislation that would provide homeowners with some of the nation's strongest protections from foreclosure and aggressive bank practices, such as when a lender tries to seize a home even as the resident negotiates to lower mortgage payments.
After years of housing and mortgage market distress during which lenders seized nearly a million California houses, legislators on Monday sent a pair of Assembly and Senate bills to the governor designed to help financially distressed borrowers stay in their homes.
The legislation would make California the first state to prohibit "dual tracking," when lenders pursue foreclosures and simultaneously negotiate with clients to modify their mortgages so that payments become more affordable. Homeowners complain that they often wind up being evicted even though they had been working with the bank to modify their loans in order to avoid foreclosure.
The measures outlaw so-called robo-signing, the use of false signatures on foreclosure documents, and allow state agencies and private citizens to sue financial institutions, under limited conditions, for economic damages and for additional civil damages of up to $50,000 if lenders willfully, intentionally or recklessly violate the law. No lawsuit can go forward if the bank or servicer first fixes the alleged problem with documentation or procedures, according to the bills.
The legislation also would simplify dealings between homeowners and their banks or loan servicers by requiring that clients be given a single point of contact, helping to avoid common bureaucratic snafus.
"This has been an incredibly long and tortuous process to get the kinds of basic protections that borrowers have long needed throughout this six-year crisis," said Paul Leonard, California director of the Center for Responsible Lending in Oakland.
The banking and real estate industries oppose the foreclosure-prevention bills, calling them well-meaning but overly complicated and so legally ambiguous that they would spur frivolous lawsuits.
It is critical that "we don't give borrowers and enterprising attorneys an opportunity to delayforeclosures at will," said Dustin Hobbs, a spokesman for the California Mortgage Bankers Assn.
Bankers also warned that the new law would increase real estate transaction costs, slow the housing recovery, tighten credit and lower home values.
A two-house conference committee took a number of amendments in an effort to address some of the criticisms by the banks.
Conferees narrowed the measures to apply only to modifications on first-lien mortgages. The compromises also limited the protections to only owner-occupied residential properties with fewer than four living units. Mortgage holders who bought property for investments and so-called strategic defaulters, who turn in keys and voluntary go into foreclosure, are not covered by the proposed law.
On Monday, the Assembly voted 53-25 in favor of the pair of bills that came out of the conference committee; the Senate passed the bills on a 25-13 vote.
The bills are the most controversial part of a Homeowner Bill of Rights legislative package, sponsored by California Atty. Gen.Kamala D. Harris. The package is modeled on a multi-state, $25-billion settlement of a foreclosure lawsuit against five large banks but would extend protections to more homeowners and would lock the provisions into state statutes.
The proposed state law, Harris said, is "fair and transparent" and noted that it only applies to people living in their homes.
Gov. Jerry Brown hasn't said whether he supports the two bills, written by 10 Democratic lawmakers, including the Senate and Assembly leaders. Those lawmakers, however, said they couldn't foresee any circumstances in which Brown might use his veto powers.
If the bills had been law a few years ago, they would have saved many homeowners much time, anxiety and heartache, said Rose Gudiel, who knows the problems all too well. The state worker from La Puente ran into unexpected financial difficulties in 2009 and fell slightly behind on her mortgage payments.
For three years, she tried to get a loan modification but said she couldn't get a straight answer on her status. She received a foreclosure notice in early 2011 but refused to vacate her home. The bank granted new terms only after Gudiel, 35, backed by activists with the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, made the news by getting arrested during a protest.
Gudiel said she can afford to stay in her three-bedroom house, where she lives with her mother, father and brother, now that her monthly mortgage payment has dropped to $1,800 from $2,400.
"It's a good thing, because at least you're able to get an answer and don't have to go through the extremes that I had to do," she said.
Lifsher reported from Sacramento and Lazo from Los Angeles.