Showing posts with label crime. Show all posts
Showing posts with label crime. Show all posts

Monday, 8 March 2021

Marital rape: A non-criminalized crime in India

 The definition of rape codified in Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”) includes all forms of sexual assault involving nonconsensual intercourse with a woman.[2] However, Exception 2 to Section 375 exempts unwilling sexual intercourse between a husband and a wife over fifteen years of age from Section 375’s definition of “rape” and thus immunizes such acts from prosecution. As per current law, a wife is presumed to deliver perpetual consent to have sex with her husband after entering into marital relations. While unwilling sexual contact between a husband and a wife is recognized as a criminal offense in almost every country of the world, India is one of the thirty-six countries that still have not criminalized marital rape.[3] The Supreme Court of India and various High Courts are currently flooded with writ petitions challenging the constitutionality of this exception, and in a recent landmark judgment, the Supreme Court criminalized unwilling sexual contact with a wife between fifteen and eighteen years of age.[4] This judgment has in turn led to an increase in other writs challenging the constitutionality of Exception 2 as a whole. In light of ongoing litigation, this Article critically analyses the constitutionality of Exception 2. 

Violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution

Article 14 of the Indian Constitution ensures that “[t]he State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”[5] Although the Constitution guarantees equality to all, Indian criminal law discriminates against female victims who have been raped by their own husbands.


At the time the IPC was drafted in the 1860s, a married woman was not considered an independent legal entity. Rather, she was considered to be the chattel of her husband.[6] As a result, she did not possess many of the rights now guaranteed to her as an independent legal entity, including the right to file a complaint against another under her own identity.[7] Exception 2, which essentially exempts actions perpetrated by husbands against their wives from being considered acts of “rape,” is largely influenced by and derived from this already existing doctrine of merging the woman’s identity with that of her husband.


The roots of this doctrine can be traced to British colonial rule in the Victorian era.[8] India was a British colony during the 19th century. All Indian laws enacted at this time were deeply influenced by English laws and Victorian norms. The marital exception to the IPC’s definition of rape was drafted on the basis of Victorian patriarchal norms that did not recognize men and women as equals, did not allow married women to own property, and merged the identities of husband and wife under the “Doctrine of Coverture.”


But times have changed. Indian law now affords husbands and wives separate and independent legal identities, and much jurisprudence in the modern era is explicitly concerned with the protection of women. This concern is evident in the plethora of statutes intended to protect women from violence and harassment that have been passed since the turn of the century, including “The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act” and the “Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act.”[9]


Exception 2 violates the right to equality enshrined in Article 14 insofar as it discriminates against married women by denying them equal protection from rape and sexual harassment. The Exception creates two classes of women based on their marital status and immunizes actions perpetrated by men against their wives. In doing so, the Exception makes possible the victimization of married women for no reason other than their marital status while protecting unmarried women from those same acts.


Exception 2’s distinction between married and unmarried women also violates Article 14 insofar as the classification created has no rational relation to the underlying purpose of the statute. In Budhan Choudhary v. State of Bihar[10] and State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar[11], the Supreme Court held that any classification under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution is subject to a reasonableness test that can be passed only if the classification has some rational nexus to the objective that the act seeks to achieve. But Exception 2 frustrates the purpose of Section 375: to protect women and punish those who engage in the inhumane activity of rape. Exempting husbands from punishment is entirely contradictory to that objective. Put simply, the consequences of rape are the same whether a woman is married or unmarried. Moreover, married women may actually find it more difficult to escape abusive conditions at home because they are legally and financially tied to their husbands. In reality, Exception 2 encourages husbands to forcefully enter into sexual intercourse with their wives, as they know that their acts are not discouraged or penalized by law. Because no rational nexus can be deciphered between the classification created by the Exception and the underlying objective of the Act, it does not satisfy the test of reasonableness, and thus violates Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

 

Violation of Article 21  

Exception 2 is also a violation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.[12] Article 21 states that “[n]o person shall be denied of his life and personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.” The Supreme Court has interpreted this clause in various judgments to extend beyond the purely literal guarantee to life and liberty. Instead, it has held that the rights enshrined in Article 21 include the rights to health, privacy, dignity, safe living conditions, and safe environment, among others.


In recent years, courts have begun to acknowledge a right to abstain from sexual intercourse and to be free of unwanted sexual activity enshrined in these broader rights to life and personal liberty. In The State of Karnataka v. Krishnappa, the Supreme Court held that “[s]exual violence apart from being a dehumanizing act is an unlawful intrusion of the right to privacy and sanctity of a female.”[13] In the same judgment, it held that non-consensual sexual intercourse amounts to physical and sexual violence. Later, in Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration, the Supreme Court equated the right to make choices related to sexual activity with rights to personal liberty, privacy, dignity, and bodily integrity under Article 21 of the Constitution.[14]


Most recently, the Supreme Court has explicitly recognized in Article 21 a right to make choices regarding intimate relations. In Justice K.S. Puttuswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, the Supreme Court recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right of all citizens and held that the right to privacy includes “decisional privacy reflected by an ability to make intimate decisions primarily consisting of one’s sexual or procreative nature and decisions in respect of intimate relations.”[15] Forced sexual cohabitation is a violation of that fundamental right.[16] The above rulings do not distinguish between the rights of married women and unmarried women and there is no contrary ruling stating that the individual’s right to a privacy is lost by marital association. Thus, the Supreme Court has recognized the right to abstain from sexual activity for all women, irrespective of their marital status, as a fundamental right conferred by Article 21 of the Constitution.


Additionally, Exception 2 violates Article 21’s right to live a healthy and dignified life. As mentioned above, it is well settled that the “right to life” envisaged in Article 21 is not merely a right to exist. For example, there can be no dispute that every citizen of India has the right to receive healthcare or that the state is required to provide for the health of its constituents.[17] In this vein, the courts have repeatedly held that the “right to life” encompasses a right to live with human dignity.[18] Yet the very existence of Exception 2, which fails to deter husbands from engaging in acts of forced sexual contact with their wives, adversely affects the physical and mental health of women and undermines their ability to live with dignity.


The above conclusions clearly reflect that Exception 2 to Section 375 of the IPC is an infringement of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. It is time that Indian jurisprudence understands the inhumane nature of this provision of law and strikes it down.

 

Footnotes

[1] Sarthak Makkar is a second-year student at Gujarat National Law University, India. He serves as an editor for The GNLU Law Review, associate editor of the GNLU Journal of Law and Economics and Student Editor for Supremo Amicus. He has previously interned at the Supreme Court of India with Senior Advocates Mr. Jayant Bhushan and Ms. Geeta Luthra and at Nishith Desai Associates.

[2] Indian Penal Code § 375, No. 45 of 1860, India Code.

[3] Marital Rape in India: 36 countries where marital rape is not a crime, India Today, Mar. 12, 2016.

[4] Independent Thought v. Union of India, (2013) 382 SCC (2017) (India).

[5] India Const. art. 14.

[6] To Have and to Hold: The Marital Rape Exemption and the Fourteenth Amendment, 99(6) Harv. L. Rev. 1255, 1256 (1986).

[7] See generally id.

[8] Jill Elain Hasday, Consent and Contest: A Legal History of Marital Rape, 88 Calif. L. Rev. 1373 (2000).

[9] Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, No. 43, Acts of Parliament, 2005 (India); Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, No. 14, Acts of Parliament, 2013 (India).

[10] Budhan v. State of Bihar, AIR (1955) SC 191 (India).

[11] State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR (1952) SC 75 (India).

[12] India Const. art. 21.

[13] The State of Karnataka v. Krishnappa, (2000) 4 SCC 75 (India).

[14] Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration, (2008) 14 SCR 989 (India)

[15] Justice K.S. Puttuswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) AIR 2017 SC 4161 (India).

[16] as “Right to abstain” from sexual intercourse is a long recognized principle of Indian Constitutional jurisprudence . Govind v. State of M.P, AIR (1975) SC 1378 (India); Kharak Singh v. State of U.P, (1963) AIR SC 1295 (India).

[17] Regional Director ESI Corpn. v. Francis de Costa, 1993 Supp (4) SCC 100; 5 D.D. Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India, 4711 (LexisNexis 2015).

[18] C.E.S.C. Ltd. v. Subhash Chandra, (1992) 1 SCC 441 (India).


(Source: Harvard Human Rights Journal)

Monday, 24 February 2020

Most serial killers have Taurus as their star sign, research finds

Does your star sign really determine your personal characteristics, or is it just a fluke? 

According to The Mirror, it does have an impact on whether you turn out as a serial killer or not. 

For the last two years, author David Jester has been researching his new thriller Clinic, which was released this week. 
Picture: iStock by Getty / coldsnowstorm

As a result of the research, he concluded that most serial killers were born under the Taurus star sign, which is between April 20 and May 20.

Also, the most serial killers were born on April 21, and February 18. 

Notorious killers born in the month included Levi Bellfield, Albert Fish, Steve Wright, and Martha Beck.

So, it may be worth taking note if you notice any Taureans acting strangely... 


(Source: indy100)

Thursday, 23 January 2020

Doha is officially the second safest city in the world

Qatar ranks lowest in world crime index

Whether you live in Doha or are planning to move here, we’ve got fantastic news for you. You’ll be happy to know Doha is officially the second safest city in the world.

According to data from Numbeo, Doha, Qatar has ranked 375 out of 376 entries in the Current Crime Index.

The beautiful State of Qatar has always taken extra precautions and implemented extreme measures to always ensure the safety of its citizens and the country has finally been recognised for its efforts.

Doha appears at the bottom of the index that represents crime and safety. 

The city scores 11.48 on the crime index and 88.52 on the safety index.

Topping the index is Caracas, Venezuela, making it the world’s most unsafe city, followed by Port Moresby in Papua New Guinea and four cities in South Africa that rank from number three to number six including Pretoria, Johannesburg and Durban.

We’ve already talked about Doha being the greatest city in the world, and now there’s proof.


(Source: Time Out) 

Sunday, 4 August 2019

Japanese child consultation centers handled record 159,850 abuse cases in fiscal 2018

Nearly 160,000 child abuse cases were handled by child consultation centers nationwide in fiscal 2018, marking a new high due to a rise in psychological abuse reports, the health ministry’s preliminary data showed Thursday.

The number of cases increased 26,072 from a year earlier to 159,850, up for the 28th straight year since comparable data became available in fiscal 1990.

Psychological abuse, including witnessing acts of domestic violence and verbal abuse, accounted for 55.3 percent of the total in 88,389 cases, up 16,192 from the previous year.
A woman prays for 2-year-old Kotori Ikeda outside the toddler's home in Sapporo. Ikeda died in the home as a result of alleged abuse in June. | KYODO

The increasing number of reports is attributed to a wider awareness among the public that psychological mistreatment, such as allowing a child to witness acts of domestic violence, can also be considered child abuse.

Alarmed by a rise in child abuse cases, Japan will implement laws in April next year to ban parents and guardians from physically punishing children.

In the year to March, physical abuse cases rose 7,033 from the previous year to 40,256, accounting for 25.2 percent of the total, followed by 29,474 cases of neglect, or 18.4 percent, and 1,731 accounts of sexual abuse, or 1.1 percent.

Of the total reports made in fiscal 2018, 13,095 were made by the police, while 4,467 were from neighbors.

The ministry also said Thursday that officials failed to meet the state guideline of checking the safety of a child within 48 hours of a suspected abuse report in 11,984 cases between July 2018 and June this year, which accounted for 7.8 percent of the 153,571 total cases during that period.

The survey on responses within 48 hours was conducted after the death of 2-year-old Kotori Ikeda in Sapporo in June despite a child welfare official interviewing her mother last year following a tip and a police officer meeting with the mother and the girl in mid-May.

Officials had visited Ikeda’s residence within 48 hours after an initial report was made in September last year, but they did not do so following a second report in April as the case was considered to be low priority. Kotori’s mother and her boyfriend were arrested in June on suspicion of assaulting the child.

By prefecture, Osaka saw the highest reported number of child abuse cases in fiscal 2018 at 20,694, followed by Kanagawa and Tokyo with 17,272 and 16,967, respectively. Tottori ranked lowest among all 47 prefectures with 80 reported cases.

(Source: JT)

Saturday, 20 April 2019

Gay hunters: How criminal gangs lure men on dating apps before extorting cash and beating them

Institutional homophobia has made the victims easy prey, say activists, with a spate of attacks in the last month, writes Oliver Carroll in the Independent. Read on: 

It was supposed to be a harmless liaison, starting as it sometimes did: an attractive profile on a gay site, a few messages about nothing much at all, an exchange of photos, and an agreement to meet.

Sergei, 38, surname withheld, says he felt something wasn’t quite right about his date when they met in Shabolovka in Moscow’s southeastern suburbs. But it was only when the pair came home, entered the flat, and two assailants jumped out from behind the curtains that he started to realise how badly wrong things had gone.

The men announced to Sergei that his date was, in fact, a minor – even though his profile and appearance suggested he was at least 20. The attackers gave their victim a frightening ultimatum: “20,000 rubles (£250) or be outed as a poof and reported as a paedophile.”

Alamy

Sergei was lucky that a 20-year army career meant he could stand up to the men physically. After an hour, he managed to persuade them to go outside so he could try to get money from a cashpoint. From there, he ran.

His story is one of several crimes committed against gay men in Moscow over the last month.

The Independent was able to speak to three of the targeted men. They suggested that gangs operating in the capital had identified gay men as easy – and silent – victims.

The mechanism is almost always the same. Handsome young men entrap unwitting victims on dating apps and other gay sites. They lure victims to an apartment, where several other gang members are waiting. The assailants film their victim, extort money and threaten them with outing or worse. Usually, the victims pay up for a quiet life. On the occasions that they don’t, things can end brutally.

While an unwelcome reminder of the difficulties of being gay in Russia, these incidents are not an entirely new phenomenon — or even the worst examples of homophobia.

Chechnya aside, the peak of anti-gay violence in Russia came about four years ago, when groups led by the nationalist Maxim Martsinkevich (aka “The Hatchet”) entrapped, beat and humiliated dozens of gay men on camera. Martsinkevich and his “Occupy Pedophilia” gang operated on the heels of the Kremlin’s 2013 infamous anti-gay law.

But Martsinkevich and his crew were always less concerned with money than with serving a warped ideology.

Activists say the vast majority of the more recent attacks have been economic in their aims.

When it’s clear homophobic crimes are at play, the state does everything to avoid prosecution
Igor Kochetkov, Russian LGBT Network
That does not mean there have not been victims of violence. On several occasions, young men have been found in pools of blood following apparent robbery attempts, and without obvious signs of forced entry.

But today’s gangs do tend to be less violent, and instead use the taboo of homosexuality in society to keep the crimes as hidden as possible.

It’s an effective enough strategy, says Igor Kochetkov, the head of the Russian LGBT Network, a prominent advocacy group.

“People are reluctant to go to the police because they don’t want to reveal their orientation,” he says. “And the regular homophobic statements from officials don’t exactly encourage them.”

The Russian court system is not set up to help them, the activist says. When the odd case does reach court, it is usually processed as hooliganism or robbery; the hate element is never included as an aggravating factor. When Martsinkevich was finally arrested and jailed in late 2014, for example, it was for a racist video. No mention was made of the anti-gay aspects of his extremism.

“When it’s clear homophobic crimes are at play, such as what happened in Chechnya, the state does everything to avoid prosecution,” says Kochetkov.

According to Andrei Petrov, programme director of the LGBT+ advocacy group Stimulus, a lack of successful prosecutions is allowing the problem of date extortion to become more widespread.

In a survey conducted by his organisation in 2018, one in five members of the LGBT+ community reported that they had been victims of such hate crimes. Only a similar percentage report the crimes to police, and even fewer are properly investigated.

Given the lack of progress in Russian courts, Stimulus has decided to try their luck with the European Court of Human Rights.

Their test case, which dates from 2017, follows the familiar pattern. The victim, Yevgeny, 39, surname withheld, answered a profile on a love.mail.ru, a well-known dating site. He sent his picture; the other party sent his, and the pair agreed to meet by a block of flats in Moscow’s suburbs. Again, there were warning signs. The date said his name was Dima in messages, but introduced himself as Danila. But regardless, Yevgeny agreed to go upstairs to the flat.

There, a gang of eight men were waiting. They made sure Yevgeny’s quick date instead ended in a heavy beating, a request for money, and a threat to call the police for “paedophilia”.

Eventually, Yevgeny plucked up the courage to report the crime to the police. But since then, two years have passed without progress, with investigators refusing to open a criminal investigation.

“I believe the police were covering them up,” Yevgeny says. “I’ve no doubt the guys think they are completely untouchable.”

Activists and victims allege the Russian government’s own “homophobia” has fuelled the extortion business.

“The reason why these guys are getting away with it is because they are on the same side,” says Sergei. “One thing gives birth to another. They know they are doing the state’s work.”

Saturday, 19 January 2019

Qatar named safest country in the world

The State of Qatar retained its global distinction as the safest country among Arab countries and globally by winning first place in terms of safety and security among 118 countries, according to the annual report of the crime index 2019 issued by “Numbeo” the world’s largest database of user contributed data about cities and countries worldwide.

Numbeo provides current and timely information on world living conditions including cost of living, housing indicators, health care, traffic, crime and pollution.

Qatar’s superiority over this period is considered as an extension of its achievements in the past years, specifically during the period (2015-2019), where it maintained the number one position in the Arab world throughout this period, as well as achieving first place globally in 2017, 2019.

It reflects the constant and outstanding level enjoyed by the State in the field of security and safety, and the significant decrease in the rates of crimes in the country during that period.

According to the classification rules of the report, countries are ranked in reverse order that, the country that occupies 118th place is the country with the lowest crime rate and ranks first in terms of security and security.


Qatar scored a total of 13.26 points in crime index, being the lowest scorer of the points starting from zero to hundred points. According to this classification the State of Qatar came in the forefront of the safest countries with a score of (86.74) points in safety index during the current year.

The Numbeo database publishes its annual reports since 2009, based on the measurement of the crime rate in the countries of the world. The index of crimes in countries is measured according to the laws of those countries as it considers that there are acts that constitute crimes in some countries dissimilar to other countries, which gives a real measure of the rate of crime in countries in accordance with applicable laws.

The report also takes into account the different types of crimes and their classification according to the laws on crimes, offenses and violations. The indicators also depend on a set of standards related to the rates of crime and violence such as murder, terrorism, the cost of crime and other standards.

The report takes several considerations in reaching its results in terms of collecting information and analyzes the information to rank countries according to those measurements. The rates of countries range between 0-100.

The results of the annual report of the crime index indicate a number of indications, most notably the state of safety and security in Qatar, thanks to the continuous efforts of the Ministry of Interior in its vision of achieving maximum security and stability in society and protecting lives and property, in accordance with the vision 2030.

The Ministry has been working on building an integrated security system, ensuring security throughout the country, as well as enhancing security awareness among the public, which contributed to the decrease in the number of reports and issues of major crimes at the concerned departments.

(Source: The Peninsula)

Sunday, 9 December 2018

Japan’s modern crime literature: Centuries in the making

Japan boasts an impressively large and growing body of native-grown mystery fiction that dates back to the 1920s. A widespread perception exists that this genre developed as an offshoot of imports from the West, but this is not quite the case. When it comes to Japan’s crime-related literature, China can claim introduction rights.

The chronicle “Honcho Oin Hiji” (Parallel Cases From Under the Cherry Tree), published in 1689 by popular writer Ihara Saikaku (1642-93) — and published in English by The Univeristy of Haiwaii Press in 1980 under the title “Tales of Japanese Justice” — contains accounts of several dozen historical court cases heard by the shoshidai, the shogun’s regional deputy in Kyoto. Most cases involved the exploits of a famous judge named Itakura Shigemune (1586-1657) — although Ihara never refers to Itakura by name, but simply uses the general term gozen, or “His Lordship.”

Ihara emulated a work from almost five centuries earlier in China, titled “Tang Yin Bi Shi,” or “Parallel Cases From Under the Pear Tree,” which entered Japan via Korea in 1619. Ascribed to a Chinese official named Gui Wanrong and published around 1207, the work was a treatise on criminal justice procedures, containing brief accounts of 144 notable civil cases recorded between the pre-Han (206 B.C.) and Northern Song (960-1127) dynasties. It was intended as a reference for magistrates and other government officials, and to facilitate comparison, similar cases appear in sets of two. After the classical Chinese text was translated into the Japanese vernacular, the book circulated among general readers and Ihara was inspired to follow suit with cases in Kyoto.

Now we move ahead to 1841, when American author Edgar Allan Poe published “The Murders in the Rue Morgue.” Japan’s policy of national seclusion was still in force and European languages were unfamiliar to all but a few Japanese. This was to change rapidly during the bunmei kaika era of civilization and enlightenment that characterized the Meiji Era (1868-1912), but four decades were to transpire until translations of Poe’s stories began to reach Japanese readers. For example, Koson Aeba’s translation of “The Black Cat” (1843) was only serialized in the Yomiuri Shimbun in 1887 — a time lag of 44 years. But, by the late 1880s, a growing stream of fiction by American, British and French authors began appearing as serializations in Japanese newspapers and journals.

Prime influence: Although the first work related to criminal justice
procedure reached Japan from China, Edgar Allan Poe's mystery
stories were influential in shaping Japan's modern crime
literature. | EDWIN H. MANCHESTER

The reverse process — the first translations of Japan’s native-grown crime fiction into English — did not take place until the middle of the 20th century. About three decades passed between the publication of early short stories and novellas by Edogawa Rampo (the pseudonym of Taro Hirai, 1894-1965), penned in the 1920s, and Tuttle’s publication of “Japanese Tales of Mystery and Imagination” in 1956. The next book-length anthology, “Ellery Queen’s Japanese Golden Dozen: The Detective Story World in Japan,” also from Tuttle, appeared in 1978.

By the time Edogawa Rampo’s stories made their appearance in English, mainstream Japanese crime fiction had sharply changed direction. Stories featuring “genius sleuths” — in the Sherlock Holmes mode — popularized by Edogawa and his contemporaries, such as Seishi Yokomizo (1902-81), were being challenged by so-called “social crime novels,” a style pioneered in the postwar era by prolific author Seicho Matsumoto (1909-92).

Matsumoto’s works often embraced social themes such as political corruption and coverups by powerful groups or individuals who were pursued by tenacious policemen, journalists and attorneys. These works attracted a wide readership, and served to popularize mystery fiction On the other hand, their appeal to non-Japanese readers was more limited, due in part because many were loosely based reconstructions of actual events in the Truman Capote style, which required readers to be familiar with the original stories.

While translations are numerous, Matsumoto’s works have not aged well. The plot of bestselling 1958 novel “Points and Lines,” his first full-length novel to be translated into English, is spun around the seemingly airtight alibi of a murder suspect who could not have been in Kyushu and Hokkaido on the same day, and seems strangely archaic in the jet age.

Three decades ago, American John Apostolou, mystery critic and co-editor of the 1987 short story anthology “Murder in Japan: Japanese Stories of Crime and Detection,” observed that the sum total of all Japanese mystery titles available in English translation was fewer than a single month’s output by Japanese authors. Happily that number has increased considerably.

Even though perhaps only a half-dozen new titles appear every year, the total body of work makes for a fairly large and diverse selection, ranging from police procedurals and eccentric amateur detectives to the exploits of master criminals. The current selection (including out-of-print titles) includes some outstanding works by female authors, beginning with Shizuko Natsuki (1938-2016) who wrote novels such as “Murder at Mt. Fuji,” and is also represented by such sub-genres as juvenile mystery fiction and sagas of swashbuckling samurai who enforced the law in the pre-modern era.

(Source: JT)

Thursday, 1 February 2018

Prize launched for thrillers that avoid sexual violence against women

The Staunch book prize has been founded to honour books where ‘no woman is beaten, stalked, sexually exploited, raped or murdered

From Before I Go to Sleep to The Girl on the Train, the trope of the woman in danger from a man has powered novel after novel to the top of the book charts. But claiming that violence against women in fiction has reached “a ridiculous high”, a new prize is being launched for the best thriller “in which no woman is beaten, stalked, sexually exploited, raped or murdered”.

Founded by the author and screenwriter Bridget Lawless, the Staunch book prize will open to entries next month, with the winner to be announced on 25 November, the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. Lawless, who is funding the £2,000 prize pot herself, will be joined on the judging panel by the actor and writer Doon Mackichan, who wrote and presented a BBC Radio 4 documentary about the increase of violence against women on television, Body Count Rising.

“It’s way past time for something more original,” Lawless writes on the prize’s website. “As violence against women in fiction reaches a ridiculous high, the Staunch book prize invites thriller writers to keep us on the edge of our seats without resorting to the same old cliches – particularly female characters who are sexually assaulted (however ‘necessary to the plot’), or done away with (however ingeniously).”

Lawless said she was moved to launch the prize after seeing the number of films featuring rape as a plot device at last year’s Baftas. She is entitled to vote in the awards, but this year abstained, writing in the Guardian that it was not clear if the films in the running were free from the accusations of sexual abuse that have swept Hollywood in the wake of claims made against the film producer Harvey Weinstein.

“I thought, I can do one small thing. I thought I’d start with books. They are a source for so much material, and if I can have a tiny bit of influence there, it will help,” she said. “There are so many books in which women are raped or murdered for an investigator or hero to show off his skills … This is about writers coming up with stories that don’t need to rely on sexual violence … Is there no other story?”

 To impose a blanket ban on any writing that deals with this seems to me to be self-defeating
Val McDermid, crime author


The Staunch book prize will disqualify any work that does not meet its criteria of no woman in the story being “beaten, stalked, sexually exploited, raped or murdered”. It is open to stories across the thriller genre – crime, psychological, comedy and mysteries – and to traditionally published, self-published and not-yet-published works.

“I’m certainly not alone in getting increasingly fed up and disgusted with fictional depictions of violence happening to women in books, films and television. It echoes, exaggerates, fetishises and normalises what happens to women in the real world. But I know there are writers creating thrilling and complex work without going there,” she writes on the prize’s website.

The crime novelist Andrew Taylor said: “It has to be good in principle that someone’s drawing attention to crime fiction, on page and screen, that uses women-as-victims-of-violence as … a sort of literary monosodium glutamate: ie, as a gratuitous and fundamentally nasty flavour enhancer lacking moral or artistic purpose.

“That said, it’s hard to see how anyone could cope with the practicalities of administering such a prize, or even define its terms of reference without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.”

Fellow crime novelist Val McDermid agreed. “My take on writing about violence against women is that it’s my anger at that very thing that fires much of my work. As long as men commit appalling acts of misogyny and violence against women, I will write about it so that it does not go unnoticed.”

McDermid said that it was “entirely possible to write about this without being exploitative or gratuitous”, although many authors do not. “I agree that there is a lot of fiction – not just crime novels and thrillers – that seems almost to glory in a kind of pornography of violence, and I deplore that as a woman and as a writer,” she said. “But that’s not generally the sort of book that wins awards. To impose a blanket ban on any writing that deals with this seems to me to be self-defeating.”

McDermid said that she, along with “many other crime writers, particularly women”, had created “strong female characters with agency who provide a powerful counter-image to the ‘woman as victim’ trope”.

“Women writers get asked all the time, ‘How does it feel as a woman to write about women as victims of violence?’ Male writers are never asked this question. Go figure,” she said. “Although men are as likely to be murder victims as women, the nature of the crimes is different. Men die in fights; drink, drugs and gangs are usually at the heart of it. Woman die because they are women, often at the hands of the men in their lives … There’s very often a sexual element to the murder of women, which begs all sorts of questions about power and misogyny and psychological oppression. Frankly, random knife crime doesn’t make for very interesting fiction. More sinister crimes that involve relationships between the victim and the perpetrator inevitably make for a more involving read.”

Lawless acknowledged that not all thrillers depicting crimes against women are gratuitous or exploitative. “Of course, there are [good thrillers tackling this topic] but they are not for this prize,” she said. “How we see women depicted and treated in fiction does spread out to the wider world and how women are treated there. That battle is far from won, but there is definitely a climate change. People are fed up with it. Here’s my alternative.”

(Source: The Guardian)

Wednesday, 9 August 2017

Transgender convict in Hokkaido asks to be treated as female inmate

In Japan, prisons are determined according to sex as recorded in family registries.

A 38-year-old transgender woman in Hokkaido who has been convicted of theft has asked the Justice Ministry and local prosecutors to be treated as a female inmate, despite being listed as male in her family registry.

She has been living as a woman and wants to be supervised by female prison officers while continuing hormone treatment, a source close to her said Tuesday.

She was indicted last year without arrest for shoplifting in the city of Sapporo. A district court handed down a prison sentence of 18 months, and the judgment was upheld by a high court. In July, the Supreme Court rejected an appeal and the woman is set to be imprisoned soon.

She also served 16 months in prison between 2011 and 2013 for theft, and complained of mental anguish as a result of being overseen by male prison guards as well as palpitations and insomnia after being deprived of hormone therapy.

Prisons are determined according to sex as recorded in family registries, but transgender women can be overseen by female officers if they have had male genitalia removed, according to the Justice Ministry. The woman in this case has not completed transition nor changed her family registry.

The ministry’s Correction Bureau said male officers would normally oversee an inmate in a similar situation unless the head of a prison determines otherwise. But it added that it has paid due consideration to people in similar circumstances such as by assigning female officers if necessary.

Regarding the hormone treatment, the bureau said it is “not the state’s responsibility” to allow it “unless there would be irreparable damage and the bureau determines there is a necessity” to do so.

Mikiya Nakatsuka, professor at Okayama University and a specialist on transgender issues, said the government “should be more flexible regardless of whether an inmate has undergone surgery.”

“Hormone therapy is crucial for maintaining health, so the government should seek the opinions of doctors (working with) gender identity disorder,” Nakatsuka said.

According to research led by Katsuki Harima, a doctor at Harima Mental Clinic, about 22,000 people consulted medical institutions due to GID as of the end of 2015.

Requests from around 6,000 people to change their sex on their family registries had been accepted as of 2015. A special law came into force in 2004 permitting such changes if one applies to a family court.

(Source: JT)

Tuesday, 1 August 2017

Driver's chilling revelation: Indrani sat on dead Sheena's face, decked her up before torching body

Driver and co-accused in the Sheena Bora murder case deposed before the CBI court. According to his horrifying account, Indrani Mukerjea strangled Sheena, sat on her face and burnt her body in a forest.

Shyamwar Rai, the driver and co-accused in the Sheena Bora murder case who turned an approver last year, deposed before the CBI court in Mumbai today.

He gave chilling details of the murder plot and told the CBI court that Indrani Mukerjea strangled Sheena Bora to death and sat on her face before burning her body in a remote location.

Shyamwar Rai's account is as horrific as it can get.

According to driver Shyamwar, in April 24, 2012, the three -- Bora's mother Indrani Mukerjea, her former husband Sanjeev Khanna and himself -- picked up Sheena Bora.

She was later given a spiked cocktail in the car and was "sitting quietly with her eyes closed".

In the rear seat of the car, Indrani's ex-husband grabbed Sheena's hair and Indrani strangled her. When Shyamwar tried to cover Sheena's mouth, she bit his thumb.

"Indrani Madam was strangling Sheena with her hands... I could hear Sheena gasping and making gagging sounds. After a while, everything was quiet. Sheena became quiet."

Shyamwar admitted in his confession how Indrani immediately after murdering Sheena asked him to drive to a hotel.

While on their way to the hotel, Shyamwar said that Indrani fussed about a 3BHK flat that was given to Sheena. According to him, Indrani later sat on Sheena's face in a fit of rage.

"Indrani Madam sat on Sheena's face and said - here's your three-bedroom flat," driver Shyamwar Rai said during his questioning at the CBI court.

And after reaching a remote location," Indrani madam applied lipstick on Sheena Bora and made sure that her hair looked good."

"Madam took a saree and a pair of gloves out of the bag, and kept them on the body. She even kept the bag on her. She then poured petrol over her and left the can there. Indrani madam took out matchsticks from her pockets and burnt her," Shyamwar said.

In a threatening reaffirmation to Shyamwar, Indrani told him to not to speak a word about it and threatened him with "dire consequences".


INSIDE THE COURTROOM
Before his statement at the CBI court, driver Shyamwar seemed restless and by the time he finished it he told the public prosecutor Kavita Patil that he was exhausted.

When Shyamwar's statement was being heard, Indrani along with her ex-husband Sanjeev Khanna and Peter Mukerjea were closely observant. However, Shyamwar avoided eye contact with his former employers.

Incidentally, when Shyamwar  was narrating Indrani's deeds after the murder, the latter let out a chuckle in the court.

Shyamwar also told that Indrani had plans to kill Sheena Bora's brother Mikhail.

Shyamwar admitted in the court he conducted a recce on two remote locations one for each. Out of the two places, Indrani zeroed down on Raigadh.

Driver Shyamwar Rai's deposition will continue on Tuesday.

(Source: India Today)

Tuesday, 4 July 2017

Once a drug user in Japan, always an outcast

Since being arrested for possession of stimulant drugs on June 2, it is assumed that 30-year-old actor Ryo Hashizume’s career is over. As Mark Schilling wrote in the June 15 Japan Times, Hashizume’s latest film, in which he played a supporting role, was pulled from theaters. It reopened June 17, but with Hashizume’s scenes deleted. For all intents and purposes, he had become a nonperson in show business.

And I mean that literally. Owing to the way drug busts are covered in the media, anyone even accused of using illegal substances is presented as not just a criminal, but something subhuman. This idea was established in the 1980s with an anti-drug public service announcement that used the slogan, “Ningen yamemasu ka?,” meaning, “Will you stop being a person?” By taking drugs, that is.

Media critic Chiki Ogiue mentioned the campaign on his “Session-22” radio show back in January.

“But do you stop being a person when you have cancer?” he asked rhetorically, emphasizing that drug addiction should be treated as a disease rather than as a mortal sin. The stigma is built into the vocabulary used to talk about people with drug habits. Invariably, those who have kicked their habits through whatever means have been “corrected” (kōsei), a word that stresses incarceration, whereas Ogiue thinks a better verb is “recover” (kaifuku), as if from an illness.

But “kōsei” represents the reality in that drug convictions lead to time in prison rather than time in hospitals, and prisons aren’t designed to cure addicts of their dependencies. The radio show and other sources mention that in Japan, more than 60 percent of those who do time for drug crimes end up being rearrested for drug crimes after they get out of jail.

The public thinks drug users deserve hard punishment because drug use is seen as a lapse in moral rectitude that can have a bad effect on the community. Ogiue thinks the opposite is actually the case; that downplaying a drug’s health-abating properties can make the drug attractive to certain people.

For these reasons, Ogiue, working with experts, former addicts and listeners of his program, came up with guidelines for the media when covering drug-related stories, since such coverage will affect addicts in treatment programs and their supporters, including families. The media should always stress that drug use is an illness requiring treatment rather than a crime that needs to be punished. It should incorporate coverage of people who give and receive such treatment, including recovering addicts. It should also show links between drugs and social problems, such as poverty and abuse, whenever applicable.

More significantly, the guidelines tell reporters what to avoid, including “images of white powder and syringes,” comments that express disappointment in the accused as either a person or a professional, “extreme coverage” using helicopters or hidden cameras, suspicion of drug use as the basis for a scoop and creating “beautiful stories” out of anecdotes of drug recovery with the help of loved ones.


For these efforts, Ogiue’s show received The Galaxy Grand Prix Award for excellence in broadcasting, though, given the usual overblown tone of the Hashizume coverage, those efforts don’t seem to have had the desired effect yet.

In fact, the authorities seem to be moving in a progressive direction faster than the media is. On another radio show, Bunka Hoso’s (Nippon Cultural Broadcasting) June 13 edition of “Golden Radio,” writer Maki Fukasawa reviewed Ogiue’s guidelines and talked about how the government was now considering switching the impetus of drug sentencing from punishment to treatment in line with other countries’ approaches. Recently, Japan’s judicial system has expanded its use of suspended sentences for certain crimes. In the case of drug offenses, convicted persons spend part of their sentence in prison and part in a recovery program. The main purpose of the new law is to prevent repeat offenses, and as Fukasawa points out, the program will also need to ensure that ex-offenders can secure jobs once they are back out in the world, since unemployment is a strong incentive for falling back into a drug habit.

That includes show-business people. Fukasawa used the example of Robert Downey Jr., who was a serious drug addict at one point and even did jail time for his habit. He eventually got sober and is now one of the highest paid actors in the world, but as Fukasawa said, that couldn’t happen in Japan because the media would never allow the public to forget about his drug use.

What Fukasawa didn’t mention is that while Downey’s career has been rehabilitated in the U.S., he is still persona non grata in Japan. Some years ago when he came here to promote one of his Iron Man movies, immigration officers detained him for six hours because of his felony drug conviction. Eventually, he was allowed in, but he’s never been back since.

Drug convictions leave an indelible mark, and while the Japanese media perpetuates the stigma due to its proclivity for sensationalism, it’s the law and the rationale behind the law that creates the stigma in the first place. In his quest to change media behavior, Ogiue makes the age-old argument that personal drug use does not directly harm anyone else, but he doesn’t go so far as to say that drug possession is a victimless crime. The victim is the user and, by extension, his or her family.

Given the examples he used, Ogiue was obviously talking about methamphetamines, but he doesn’t distinguish between “stimulant” drugs and other kinds, because the police don’t either. (There are different laws for stimulants and for narcotics, but no appreciable difference in how they’re prosecuted.)

Marijuana users in Japan are also branded as criminals, but can they also be described as being ill? In many countries now, pot itself is used to treat certain medical conditions. The demonization of drug users is a function of the demonization of recreational drugs, regardless of whether or not they lead to addiction.

(Source: JT)

Friday, 24 March 2017

America's largest mental hospital is a jail

At Cook County, where a third of those incarcerated suffer from psychological disorders, officials are looking for ways to treat inmates less like prisoners and more like patients, writes MATT FORD on the Atlantic: 

It was 9 o’clock in the morning at Cook County Jail, but in the subterranean holding cells where dozens await their turn before a judge, you wouldn't be able to tell. Pre-bail processing here takes place entirely underground. A labyrinth of tunnels connects the jail’s buildings to one another and to the Cook County Criminal Court. Signs and directions are intentionally left off the smooth concrete corridors to hinder escape attempts. Even those who run the jail get lost down here from time to time, they told me.

No natural light reaches the tunnels. Human voices echoed off the featureless walls, creating an omnipresent din. On this Monday, when those arrested over the weekend in Chicago and its suburbs filled the fenced cages, that din became a roar. Many inmates were standing, sitting, or milling around. But some—perhaps two or three per holding pen—were lying on the floor, asleep.

If you can sleep through this, you’re fighting far greater demons than the commotion outside. And the doctors here want to know what they are.

At Cook County Jail, an estimated one in three inmates has some form of mental illness. At least 400,000 inmates currently behind bars in the United States suffer from some type of mental illness—a population larger than the cities of Cleveland, New Orleans, or St. Louis—according to the National Alliance on Mental Illness. NAMI estimates that between 25 and 40 percent of all mentally ill Americans will be jailed or incarcerated at some point in their lives.

“This is typically what I see everyday,” said Elli Petacque-Montgomery, a psychologist and the deputy director of mental health policy for the sheriff’s department. She showed me a medical intake form filled with blue pen scribbles. Small boxes listed possible illnesses: bipolar disorder, ADHD, schizophrenia, and so on. The forms are designed to help jail officials identify which inmates have mental illnesses as early as possible. Details from four new inmates could fit on a single sheet. She showed me a completed one. “Of those four,” she said, pointing to the descriptors, “I have three mentally ill people.”

The overwhelming majority had been arrested for “crimes of survival” such as retail theft (to find food or supplies) or breaking and entering (to find a place to sleep).
On a nearby counter, a nurse took down notes for a Hispanic inmate with an injured eye. A white inmate with dreadlocks wearing a Chicago Bears jersey—they had defeated the San Francisco 49ers the night before—stood next to them, translating his fellow inmate’s Spanish for the nurse.

What sort of crimes had these people been arrested for? One kid on the list had a tendency toward aggression, but officials emphasized that the overwhelming majority were “crimes of survival” such as retail theft (to find food or supplies) or breaking and entering (to find a place to sleep). For those with mental illness, charges of drug possession can often indicate attempts at self-medication. “Even the drugs of choice will connect to what the mental illness is,” Petacque-Montgomery told me. People with severe depression might use cocaine “to lift their mood.” Those who hear voices and have schizophrenia or bipolar disorder often turn to heroin to regulate their sleep. Marijuana use “is just constant for kids with ADD and depression,” she notes. “I’ll ask, ‘Can you eat or sleep without this?’ and they’ll say no.’”

Chicagoans with mental illness end up in jail through a chain of small decisions by different local officials. Police officers can choose to take a mentally ill person home, to the hospital, to a shelter—or to jail. Prosecutors can choose whether or not to not bring charges. Judges can choose to set higher or lower bail amounts, thereby determining whether poorer defendants can avoid pre-trial detention and keep their jobs and housing. But once a person reaches the jail, the local sheriff can’t simply decline to take them into custody.

In Chicago, that responsibility falls to Tom Dart, the 52-year-old sheriff of Cook County. Dart supervises about 6,900 sworn officers in the Cook County Sheriff’s Department. His jurisdiction encompasses the roughly 5.3 million people living in and around Chicago. As sheriff, Dart is also responsible for Cook County Jail, the largest single-site jail in the United States. Because so many people with mental illness pass through his custody, Cook County Jail can also be considered the largest mental-health facility in the nation. The jail has been run accordingly since Dart's election in 2006. All incoming staff, including the 300 to 400 new correctional officers hired annually, now receive 60 hours of advanced mental-illness treatment training. His officers can’t simply be guards anymore, Dart emphasizes. “You have to be a doctor. You have to be a nurse. You have to be a social worker. You have to be all of these things.”

Last month, Dart appointed Nneka Jones Tapia, a clinical psychologist who previously oversaw mental health care at Cook County Jail, as executive director of the facility. Jones Tapia is currently the only mental health professional in charge of a major jail in the United States. Her appointment underscores how much of the jail’s work is devoted to treating people with significant mental illnesses.

In most jurisdictions, the recently arrested are brought to local holding cells for fingerprinting and charges, then taken to the county jail for processing and a bond hearing. Cook County is no different—except for its mental-health screening. “What I did is, I put this new layer in between, so when they get dropped off before they go to the bond hearing, we interview them and we try to find some sort of alternatives for them to suggest to the judge,” Dart explained.

How did the judiciary respond, I asked? He shrugged. “They haven’t.” Dart has spent most of his career as part of the criminal justice system in some way. He previously worked in the state attorney’s office as a prosecutor until 1991, when he spent 11 years in the Illinois state legislature. “I’m not invited to a lot of their parties, let’s put it that way,” he said about the judges, cracking a grin.

All new detainees at the Cook County Jail go through mental health evaluations before their bond hearings.
Here it’s worth noting that a jail is not a prison. Every inmate I spoke with had been arrested or charged with a crime, but not necessarily tried and convicted for it. In the law’s eyes, they were still innocent until proven guilty. Jail officials told me that some of their cases would be likely dropped before reaching trial. The Cook County public defender’s office advised the inmates not to give me their last names or discuss details of their alleged crimes with me. Few of them listened. Because of the sensitive nature of these conversations—and because mental illness can carry a lifelong stigma, even if the person is not a threat to himself or others—I’ve omitted the inmates’ surnames throughout this story.

Demetrio’s battle with mental illness began at an early age. “My mother was murdered and I watched it when I was young, so that’s how it started,” he told me. Doctors diagnosed him with post-traumatic stress disorder and bipolar disorder as an adolescent. He served time for drug-related offenses in 1987 and 1993, then kept out of trouble for the next 18 years. He drifted in and out of Chicago-area hospitals during that period, checking himself in when he felt suicidal.

While on parole for a 2009 burglary charge, he went off his medication and stopped reporting to his parole officer. That landed him back in state prison to serve the remainder of his sentence. There, Demetrio received medication and treatment, but it ended the moment he became a free man last year.

Prison doctors tried to set him up with an appointment in one of the city’s remaining community mental-health clinics. “They said the earliest I could see a doctor was June [2014],” he told the sheriff and me.

“When were you released?” asked Dart.

Nine months earlier in October 2013, Demetrio replied. He knew that surviving until the following June wouldn’t be easy. “I was trying to stretch my medicine out by not taking it regularly like I should have every day,” he told me. “It didn’t work.” This spring, he was arrested on aggravated battery charges—for getting in a fight with a man selling drugs to his family, he told me—and landed back in Cook County Jail on a $250,000 bond. He said he wasn’t medicated when the fight erupted and was eager to get back out.

“I’ve been in Chicago my whole life. I have a 14-year-old son. His mother’s all messed up right now, she’s on drugs, that’s why I’m trying to get out of here,” he told me. Demetrio spoke lucidly and without difficulty during our conversation. He credited the hydroxyzine, Klonopin, and Prozac he was receiving at the jail. “I’ve been lucky so far,” he told me. “If I wasn’t on my medication, I’d be a whole different person.”

Cook County Jail does house its share of serious violent offenders. Some of them are mentally ill. Many aren’t. But the overwhelming majority of Cook County Jail’s mentally ill population is booked for minor offenses, Dart told me. “When people do not receive the care they need, they become symptomatic,” Jones Tapia explained. “When people become symptomatic with acute mental illness, a lot of times those behaviors look criminal. And we have done an excellent job of criminalizing people with mental illness in our state.”

“I’ve been lucky so far. If I wasn’t on my medication, I’d be a whole different person.”
When the criminal-justice system is your only hope, perverse incentives are also inevitable. In 1976, the Supreme Court ruled in Estelle v. Gamble that prisons are constitutionally required to provide adequate medical care to inmates in their custody. As a result, prisoners are the only group of Americans with a constitutional right to health care. Multiple city and county officials told me they had encountered mentally ill people who committed crimes simply to receive treatment.

The United States does not have a national mental-health system, nor has it ever had one. Caring for the severely mentally ill has long been the responsibility of the states, starting with the first asylums and mental-health hospitals established in the mid-19th century. In 1854, the social reformer Dorothea Dix pressured Congress to set aside 10 million acres of public lands for mental-health facilities. President Franklin Pierce, who viewed it as an overreach of federal power, vetoed the final bill. It would be another nine decades before Congress would enact the first mental-health law. As the scarred veterans of European and Pacific battlefields returned home from World War II, the National Mental Health Act of 1946 established the National Institutes for Mental Health and provided research funding to states.

The postwar era saw other changes in the way states addressed mental health. Foremost among these was the birth of psychopharmacology and the development of new drug treatments for mental illnesses. Chlorpromazine, best known in the U.S. under the brand name Thorazine, became the first widely adopted antipsychotic drug in 1955. Others soon followed, and they had an immediate impact on the therapeutic landscape. Although the effects varied from person to person, many patients with serious mental illnesses could now be reliably treated beyond the asylum and hospital walls for the first time.

Against this backdrop, Congress passed the Mental Health Study Act in 1955. The law established a joint commission on mental health to evaluate the nation’s mental-health policy and propose reforms. Greer Williams, a prominent psychiatrist and writer, became the editor of the joint commission’s final report, which was published in December 1960. In its July 1961 issue, when The Atlantic included a special supplement titled “Psychiatry in American Life,” Williams contributed an article that detailed the commission’s findings. “One of the most revealing disclosures” of the report, he wrote, “is that comparatively few of 277 state hospitals — probably no more than 20 per cent — have actively participated in the modern therapeutic trend toward humane, healing hospitals and clinics of easy access and easy exit, instead of locked, barred, prisonlike depositories of alienated and rejected human beings.” The typical state hospital, he explained, “does a good job of keeping patients physically alive and mentally sick.”

The solution, many activists and experts thought, would be to shift away from state-run mental hospitals altogether into a new model of mental-health treatment. Shaping this zeitgeist was a steady stream of depictions of the horrors of the asylum system by journalists and popular culture. Books like 1962’s One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, with its graphic depictions of electroconvulsive therapy and unsympathetic portrayals of mental-health workers, reflected popular views of psychiatric care.

New inmates are processed at the Cook County Jail.
These efforts found a receptive audience in President John F. Kennedy. His sister Rosemary, who suffered from intellectual disabilities, received a prefrontal lobotomy in 1941 and lived in private mental hospitals for the rest of her life. Kennedy highlighted the need for reform in a February 1963 special message to Congress.

There are now about 800,000 such patients in this nation's institutions—600,000 for mental illness and over 200,000 for mental retardation. Every year nearly 1,500,000 people receive treatment in institutions for the mentally ill and mentally retarded. Most of them are confined and compressed within an antiquated, vastly overcrowded, chain of custodial state institutions. The average amount expended on their care is only $4 a day—too little to do much good for the individual, but too much if measured in terms of efficient use of our mental health dollars. In some States the average is less than $2 a day.
Kennedy’s plan was to decentralize American mental health care. “We must move from the outmoded use of distant custodial institutions to the concept of community-centered agencies,” he told legislators. To replace the asylums, the president envisioned a national network of community-based mental health centers, equipped to provide “a coordinated range of timely diagnostic, health, educational, training, rehabilitation, employment, welfare, and legal protection services.”

The Senate responded accordingly by passing the Community Mental Health Act, but Kennedy’s legislation met with resistance when it reached the House committee on interstate commerce. House Republicans and the American Medical Association opposed including funds for personnel in the bill. Committee members reduced the building construction provision to $238 million and eliminated all $427 million set aside for staffing in the final House version. The House and Senate later compromised on $329 million overall, but with no funds for personnel. “For bricks and mortar, maybe, but for the care of human beings, nothing,” Williams later complained in The Atlantic. The Community Mental Health Act was the last legislation Kennedy signed into law before his murder in Dallas.

The act accelerated a process called “deinstitutionalization”—a national shift in mental-health treatment from state hospitals to community-based facilities. Between 1955 and 1998, the populations in state and county mental hospitals dropped from approximately 558,000 to fewer than 60,000. “The decline was even more dramatic if general population growth is taken into account,” wrote scholars Howard Goldman and Gerald Grob in their history of federal mental-health policy. “Had the proportion remained stable and the mix constant, mental hospitals would have had about 950,000 patients in 2000.”

“States proved more enthusiastic about emptying the old facilities than about providing new ones. Many patients went from straitjackets to steam grates.”

Other legislation contributed to the process. When Congress created Medicaid in 1965, it barred payments for people in “institutions of mental diseases” but allowed payments for community mental health centers. In the last year of his presidency, Jimmy Carter signed the Mental Health Systems Act of 1980, which provided grants directly to community mental health centers. The boost in funding was short-lived. In one of the first speeches of his presidency, Ronald Reagan complained that, through federal mandates, “a federal helping hand is quickly turning into a federal mailed fist.” His administration repealed the Mental Health Systems Act within its first year, converted direct funding into block grants for the states, and cut federal mental-health spending by one-third. No one picked up the slack.

By the mid-1980s, it was apparent that something had gone wrong. “The policy that led to the release of most of the nation’s mentally ill patients from the hospital to the community is now widely regarded as a major failure,” declared The New York Times in 1984. “States proved more enthusiastic about emptying the old facilities than about providing new ones,” the Chicago Tribune noted in 1989. “Many patients went from straitjackets to steam grates.”

Even then, it was arguably better than today. “We still had a semblance of a mental-health system in the 1980s and 1990s,” Dart told me. A study in 1990 found that 1 in 15 prisoners at Cook County Jail had some form of mental illness. Today, a conservative estimate is 1 in 3.

Deinstitutionalization’s aftershocks are still being explored by academics, but most concede its successes were mixed at best. “Cutbacks in mental health funds, together with cuts in federal money for public housing and other services, led to streams of apparently deranged people living on the streets,” wrote political scientist Marie Gottschalk. Their visibility “overshadowed the fact that many mentally ill people made successful transitions to community life.” But those who didn’t ended up in the mental institution of last resort: America’s jails and prisons.

On the Cook County sheriff’s webpage, a graph shows the percentage of people who self-reported a mental illness or substance abuse disorder at intake that day. Not all of them ultimately go into the jail; some of them bond out or have their cases dropped. But the number gives a glimpse of how many mentally ill people are arrested each day in the Chicago area. “Even if they don’t end up in the jail, they were picked up by the police and oftentimes for things that were petty and/or simply the fact that they were experiencing symptoms on the street,” said Moshe Brownstein, a manager at NAMI Chicago, “which is the criminalization of mental illness.”

Cook County Jail itself is a sprawling complex covering some 96 acres in the South Lawndale neighborhood. Inmate populations fluctuate with the seasons, but between 9,000 and 11,000 people are housed in 11 separate divisions on average. Dart also supervises roughly 2,000 people who are released on electronic monitoring. In addition to the jail itself, the complex also connects to the county’s criminal courts. The facility processes about 100,000 people through it each year.

“If you have someone diagnosed with a mental illness, can you think of a worse place to put them than a jail?” Dart asked me. “The living units we put them in change some of that dynamic—these wide-open dormitory settings—but traditionally around the county, you find they’ll be tossed in four-by-eight [foot] jail cells. I mean, can you think, if you were mentally ill, how that must feel? In addition to whatever else you’re having problems with, being locked in that cement four-by-eight room with a stranger, usually who has some other illness that has nothing to do with yours?”

A detainee lies in his bunk at Division 2, in a minimum security dorm that houses inmates with mental health issues. About a third of the jail's inmates suffers from mental illness.

Division 2 was not built to be a mental ward, but it has become one. I met Dart in a dormitory there as he spoke with a crowd of beige-garbed inmates. At one end, next to the entrance, a small television played soap operas, with steel tables and benches surrounding it. A list of rules on the wall near the showers reminded inmates that Chicago Bears games take priority over other TV shows. Between 40 and 50 people live in each dormitory, sleeping on rows of bunk beds in the middle of a large room.

When Dart arrived, the inmates gathered around and started telling him their problems one by one. A few described quality-of-life issues at the jail. Most of them asked him for help with their respective cases. Some asked for help arranging earlier hearing dates. Others complained about their public defenders. One inmate showed me a 50-page petition for a writ of certiorari that he wished to file with the Supreme Court. Dart patiently heard their grievances for about 90 minutes while jotting down names, case numbers, and other relevant details on blank printer paper. As we left the dormitory, he told me that he could only do something about perhaps 25 percent of the problems they raised. The rest were simply beyond his control.

The Great Recession accelerated the nation’s downward trend in mental-health spending. Between 2009 and 2012, America’s 50 state legislatures cut a total of nearly $4.5 billion in services for the mentally ill, even as patient intakes increased by nearly 10 percent during the height of the economic crisis. Until a few years ago, Chicago had 12 mental health clinics. In 2011, Mayor Rahm Emanuel's first budget proposed closing six of them. The closures—city officials referred to them as “consolidations”—would save the city an estimated $3 million as it struggled to balance its budget.

As mental-health advocates rallied, Dart publicly warned in editorials and interviews that many patients who lost their clinics would end up at his jail. But it didn’t work. The Chicago City Council passed Emanuel’s budget that November without dissent, 50 to 0. “People are still angry about it,” said Alexa James, the executive director of NAMI Greater Chicago. “There really wasn’t a hearing, [the clinics] just kind of closed, and people are very, very angry.”

“If I don’t get out of here by September 30,” Pierre repeatedly told me, “I’m going to lose my apartment.” His next court date was scheduled for October 1.
I asked Dart about his relationship with Emanuel. The sheriff’s office told Esquire last year that Dart hadn’t spoken with the mayor since Emanuel took office and that the mayor “might as well be Vladimir Putin or David Cameron” to him. But Dart demurred and instead told me that he had been in contact with some city aldermen and state legislators about the mental-health crisis. Around the same time the city closed half of its clinics, state budget cuts also shuttered three of the state’s nine mental health hospitals. One of them, Tinley Park Mental Health Center, treated nearly 1,900 patients each year in Chicago. Its closure caused a “world of disruption,” said John Jay Shannon, the CEO of the Cook County Health and Hospitals System. Many of the inmates I spoke with said they had received treatment there at least once.

Post-bail processing at Cook County Jail takes place in the afternoon. Inmates are brought to Building 7, one of the newer structures at the jail, where they line up in an orderly queue to be scanned, x-rayed, and thoroughly searched before entry. (The process resembled TSA screening lines at airports.) ID numbers are assigned. Fingerprints are taken. Khaki prison uniforms with “D.O.C.” stenciled on the back in large black letters are issued. Street garb is surrendered and vacuum-sealed. Jail officials then ask a series of pre-classification questions to determine where inmates should be housed. Those who give answers about significant mental illnesses, sexual-assault trauma, or other important classifications are often given protective custody.

What comes next is unusual, and possibly unique. After the normal post-bail intake procedure is complete, inmates file through a series of concrete cubicles staffed by a battalion of employees from the Cook County Health and Hospitals System. About 600 of the county hospital system’s 6,000 employees work at Cook County Jail. If the inmate is eligible, county officials can sign up him or her for CountyCare, a health insurance program for low-income Cook County residents created through the Affordable Care Act’s expansion of Medicaid. The assembly-line layout allows the county to process about 200 applications a day. Over 10,000 inmates have signed up so far.

For inmates with mental illness, who might struggle to afford prescription drugs or pay for mental health care, the program has the potential to significantly improve their quality of life. But it also has its limits. “I get really nervous when people start talking about it like it’s a panacea,” said Marlena Jentz, the deputy director of public policy at the jail. “I think there’s a lot of really positive change around this, but there are a lot of next steps too,” she told me, citing needs like health literacy and access to housing in the community.

A pervasive misconception is that violence and mental illness are closely linked. Dart and other jail officials repeatedly emphasized to me that the men I met were nonviolent, as were the vast majority of those they encountered overall. One of them, Pierre, had been charged with retail theft. Though he had no history of violence, the judge remanded him to the county’s custody on a $100,000 bond. “I can’t make a $100,000 bond,” Pierre told us pleadingly. “I couldn’t either,” Dart replied.

Pierre told me he’d been living in an apartment provided with the help of Thresholds, a local nonprofit, while surviving on disability checks. He feared that if he were cut off from Social Security while jailed, he would be unable to keep his housing.* “If I don’t get out of here by September 30,” Pierre repeatedly told me, “I’m going to lose my apartment. They’re going to put everything I own in the world out in the alley. I’ll only have what I walk out of here with.” His next court date was scheduled for October 1.

Cook County Sheriff Thomas Dart (right) speaks to a Division 2 resident. More than 5,000 inmates at Cook County Jail have signed up for Medicaid under a program that lets them apply while incarcerated

Pierre was diagnosed with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder when he was 13 years old. His regular clinic, Woodlawn, was one of the six public mental-health centers closed by budget cuts in 2012. “That’s where I went to see my doctor,” said Pierre, a Division 2 resident. “When they closed it down, I wasn’t able to continue my medication or anything.” For patients like him who relied on the clinics, the impact was immediate: “One day they was open, next it was closed.”

For people with bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, or other serious mental illnesses, losing access to treatment can lead to a loss of employment, housing, and freedom. “Closing six clinics was huge because people were comfortable there, it was in their community, they had clinical teams that spoke the language—literally and figuratively—that they understood,” said James. She added that when patients have to “hop on a few buses or trains” to get treatment in another neighborhood, “it’s a cultural change, it’s an added stressor, and it created a little more non-compliance. We saw hospitalization rates go up and we also saw incarceration rates go up. We’ve really just reallocated the money into a different type of spending that’s actually more expensive.”

Pierre hoped that the sheriff would be able to help him leave the jail and keep his housing. Dart told him he’d look into getting him equipped with an electronic-monitoring device; the county tracks roughly 2,000 inmates this way. “I don’t have no violence, I promise,” Pierre reassured us. “I’m not a bad guy.”

“It’s a system that makes absolutely no sense,” Dart told me later in the tunnels. “At the heart of it, you’ve got somebody who’s been picked up and removed from the street with some type of mental illness. Instead of treating them and then following their case for the next few years to make sure they’re stable in their communities, you basically just churn them into the criminal justice system—which was never set up for these people—and you turn them in here.”

The centerpiece of Dart’s reform efforts sits a few blocks away from the main jail campus, in a structure built on the site of a former boot camp. The Mental Health Transition Center, which opened last August, is designed to help inmates cope with mental illness and prepare to rejoin life on the outside. Phase one of the pilot program includes six weeks of daily group therapy sessions. The program’s goal is to reduce recidivism among mentally ill inmates who cycle in and out of the system.

“Many of them have come in and out of jail multiple times,” said Jones Tapia. “We have someone who’s been incarcerated 21 times.” At the time of my visit, 54 inmates had already completed the six-week program, and another 50 of them were set to begin it.

“Just think about how financially and fiscally dumb it is, too,” the sheriff said. “I mean, it’s inevitable they’re just coming back in.”
I met some of the program’s participants during one of their regular group therapy sessions. The counselor had the inmates seated on plastic chairs around a whiteboard filled with bullet points. The room felt more like a classroom than a jail. Though the day was overcast, light poured in through large windows. The youngest inmate in the group was 18 years old; the oldest was 64. All of them were black men.

Today’s theme was apologizing. The inmates listened intently, jotting down notes as their counselor spoke. She paced through the middle of the circle, asking each man in turn if there was something he should apologize for but hadn’t yet.

“There’s a lot…” mused one of the officers seated in the circle along with them.

“Join the club,” joked one of the inmates. Everyone laughed. After the reverberating chaos of the tunnels and the dormitories, it was a surreal sound.

Dart entered the room midway through the session and took a chair near the back. At the end, he asked the group how they were doing. “You’ve got about a thousand guys who want to come over here,” one inmate with thick glasses told the sheriff.

Dart nodded. “I’m trying.” Some of the participants, he later told me, used what they’d learned in the sessions to lead their own self-help groups with other inmates back at the dormitories.

Inmates gather in one of the communal areas of Division 2. 

The second phase of the pilot program adds in classroom education, GED study sessions, and job-readiness training. The classroom resembles something you’d find in an elementary school, with posters suitable for young children hanging on the walls. Counselors told me that kind of stimulation is necessary for some of the inmates who’ve cycled in and out of the criminal justice system for decades. Some of these habitual visitors have simply forgotten or never learned basic skills that many people take for granted, Jones Tapia told me. Persistent incarceration wears you down.

“And not just inside a correctional facility,” Jones Tapia said. “We’re re-teaching them things they learned in their family unit because a lot of these individuals come from dysfunctional families, unfortunately. What you see in correctional institutions are, more often than not, [symptoms] of a larger problem. And then you go into the communities and it’s single-parent homes, no-parent homes—it’s tough to teach your children when you’re not there. So we’re going back and teaching them those skills.”

Through the windows, a patchwork of gardens could be seen. Dart told me the inmates maintained the gardens themselves and then ventured to a local farmers’ market—accompanied by the sheriff and a few prison guards—to sell the fruits and vegetables. The staff had warned him against it, Dart says, but the gardening initiative had turned out to be “wildly successful.” Dart is also working on programs that will help inmates find jobs at local restaurants, learn interview and resume skills, find out how to apply for classes, track down local mental-health service organizations, and take part in a job fair with companies that have a track record of hiring ex-offenders.

It’s too early to measure the Transition Center’s success rate, but preliminary numbers are promising. As of April, 22 inmates had been successfully discharged back into the community and all of them are continuing to receive mental-health and substance-abuse treatment, jail officials told me. Some of them have found jobs or enrolled in schools. Eight of the participants were tried and convicted of the original charges against them; they are now serving state prison sentences.

For Dart, the shift from inaction to action is significant in itself. “Prior to our discharge plan, [inmate release] was an exercise in pumping people out into the street at all hours of the night,” he told me during our conversation in the tunnels. “Just cycle them out into the front here, and they wander around and they just fade away.”

The cyclical nature draws most of his ire. “Just think about how financially and fiscally dumb it is, too. I mean, it’s inevitable they’re just coming back in,” Dart told me in the tunnels. When I began to ask about the human-rights aspect, he scoffed. “Oh please,” he said. “I’ve almost given up trying to talk to people on that level because they don’t care.”

In some larger American jails, abuse of mentally ill inmates is routine. Since the 1980s, virtually every correctional facility of a certain size has been under a federal consent decree to improve conditions. Last December, Los Angeles County entered into a new federal agreement after settling an ACLU-led class-action lawsuit on behalf of abused inmates with mental illnesses. ACLU lawyers claimed that excessive use of force in L.A. County jails was endemic, and federal prosecutors brought charges against almost 20 current and former sheriff’s deputies.

In New York City, a months-long investigation last year by The New York Times last year found rampant abuse of mentally ill inmates at Rikers Island, the third-largest jail in the United States and, by default, one of the largest mental-health facilities in the country. Mayor Bill de Blasio announced in December that his administration would take radical steps to reform how the city’s justice system tackled mental-health issues. Many of the proposals in his plan, for which city officials earmarked $130 million, resemble Dart’s efforts in Cook County: strengthening pre-trial diversion programs, expanding reentry programs to prevent recidivism, and shifting from punishment to treatment.

“Instead of sitting in bed all day, I get to come over here and talk to guys that’s just tired of this life.”
Cook County Jail isn’t without its own problems. In 2008, shortly after Dart began his first term as sheriff, the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division accused the jail of systematically violating inmates’ constitutional rights. Some inmates had been badly beaten; others had been denied drugs for mental illness. One had to undergo an amputation because no one had treated an infected wound underneath his cast.

Cara Smith, who was the executive director of Cook County Jail when I visited, told me the sheriff’s office had brought the facility into compliance with almost all of the consent decree’s provisions and that federal monitors had recently described the jail as a “national model.” Both the U.S. attorney’s office in Chicago and the federal monitor tasked with overseeing Cook County Jail’s compliance declined to comment for this article, citing ongoing legal processes. Their June 2014 monitoring report, provided to The Atlantic by the U.S. attorney’s office, described “substantial improvements” in mental-health care since the consent decree’s implementation. Staff vacancies and inadequate programming space were cited as the two remaining areas where improvement was needed.

Still, Cook County Jail is clearly on the better end of a grim spectrum when it comes to mental-health services in jails. After their group therapy session ended at the treatment center, I spoke with five of the inmates about what they thought of the new re-entry program. All of them were soft-spoken, and deferential. We sat in a small circle at the center of the space. The guards left the room and a representative from the public defender’s office stood off to the side near the door.

Had any of them come across any therapy regimens or educational courses similar to this one before, I asked?

“No, I haven’t,” replied Marcus in a ponderous, gravelly voice. “I’ve been using drugs and coming in and out of the system for the last 30 years and I never received a break from no judge. I’ve always been sent right back to the penitentiary and I ain’t learned nothing.”

All of them were enthusiastic about the therapy regimen. “Oh man, there’s just so many words I’ve got to say about this program,” said Jermaine, sighing and leaning back in his chair before bolting back up and focusing intently on me. “Instead of sitting in bed all day, I get to come over here and talk to guys that’s just tired of this life. Being chosen, y’know, kind of hand-picked for this, it’s something that each individual should be beyond happy for.” They even seemed comfortable having guards participate in the therapy sessions. “[The guards] all feel that this is not a wasted opportunity or a waste of taxpayers’ money,” said Marcus.

As the officers came back and motioned that it was time to return to the jail, I asked each of the inmates what they want to do after their release. William wanted to go to trucking school and travel the country. “I just lost my wife in November and I’ve been locked up since July,” said Marcus, “so I’m looking forward to moving to another state and starting over fresh.” Roscoe, the oldest of the group, said he simply wanted to spend time with his children and grandchildren.

The other two said they hoped to help their communities. Jermaine told me he planned to get back on his feet as a public speaker and help the kids in his neighborhood. William had similar aspirations. “I’m going to take what I’ve learned,” he told me, “and show others it doesn’t have to be this way.”