Only two years after a wildly insane Perstephanie Simmons slaughtered two of her children, a judge has ordered her moved from the state mental hospital to a less secure facility and set her on a course that could lead to freedom. The judge's order is almost certain to be challenged, as it should be. Additionally, the state law on the confinement of criminals found innocent by reason of their insanity must be strengthened to make the release of murderers the exception rather than the rule.
Ninth Circuit Deputy Solicitor Blair Jennings is more than ready to appeal last week's decision by Ninth Circuit Judge Markley Dennis, but is waiting for the formal order. The judge ruled from the bench that Ms. Simmons could be relocated to an unfenced facility on state hospital grounds to begin preparing for a return to society. The one comfort the deputy solicitor took from the hearing was the judge's refusal to allow Ms. Simmons to participate in unsupervised activities outside the hospital grounds. That would require a later hearing.
But Mr. Jennings disagrees strongly with the judge's insistence that he lacked discretion to rule that Ms. Simmons required continued hospitalization once mental health experts testified to the contrary. If a judge is not allowed to consider the circumstances under which a mental patient was committed or to question whether she had been hospitalized an adequate length of time, why even bother to conduct a hearing?
Perstephanie Simmons' crime was one of the most horrifying in this state's memory. She stabbed and slit the throat of one of her children and killed another with an ax. A third child who witnessed the carnage escaped.
Incredible as it may seem, Mr. Jennings tells us that a mental health official admitted during last week's hearing that within 120 days of Ms. Simmons' confinement, it was concluded she no longer needed in-patient hospitalization. Perhaps we should be grateful the department at least waited two years to start the release process.
This is not the first time state prosecutors have clashed with the Department of Mental Health over the confinement of paranoid schizophrenics. The department appears to believe that once medicated, no matter how violent their crime, they are candidates for return to society. Ms. Simmons is said to require medication twice daily.
Several years ago, then-Attorney General Charlie Condon successfully challenged a circuit court order that allowed a woman who stabbed two children, one of them in her eye, in a North Charleston mall to participate in one of the department's pre-release programs. In that instance, the judge said the woman did need continued hospitalization but sided with mental health officials by allowing her to remain in a program that gave her considerable freedom. The appeals court said the judge was wrong: hospitalization means confinement.
But the law that deals with the confinement of persons found innocent by reason of insanity is by no means as strong as it should be. The biggest flaw is that regardless of the crime, there is a single standard for release. Surely, it should take longer to determine whether a child killer is ready for release than a thief.
Deputy Solicitor Jennings likes the Georgia law. That law, he says, gives a judge much wider discretion and puts the burden on the committed patient to prove why he or she no longer needs hospitalization. Mr. Jennings will be asking for a similar law in this state. We can think of no better cause for other prosecutors and state legislators to embrace.
What's missing in the existing process is a way to balance the best interests of society with those of the mentally ill patient. There clearly is always a risk that something will go amiss with those whose mental health depends on whether they take their medication. There is a far greater risk when the patient already has brutally murdered. That reality should be acknowledged by a stronger law.
Click here to return to story:
http://www.charleston.net/stories/080303/edi_03edit1.shtml