Jim Dey: Inmates' mental issues present problem with no solution
Nov. 16—Until about 10 years ago, the state of Illinois maintained an incredibly harsh super-maximum prison for inmates who posed disciplinary problems.
Most of the roughly 250 inmates didn't cause problems at the Tamms Correctional Center in deep Southern Illinois because of its special conditions — they were confined to their cells most of the day.
That kind of incarceration is harsh. Isolation and lack of social movement and exposure to the outside world can wreak havoc on inmates' mental and physical health.
Eventually, then-Gov. Pat Quinn closed the supermax prison in 2013, telling the public it was a consolidation move. The real reason was that he'd been persuaded by prisoner advocates that Tamms was too harsh.
That ended the official supermax concept in Illinois, but apparently not the practice of isolating inmates who pose constant discipline problems and/or generate litigation.
That was evident earlier this week when the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review an Illinois case involving a mentally ill inmate whose constant misconduct at Pontiac's maximum-security prison led to him spending nearly three years in solitary confinement.
Michael Johnson argued he was subjected to "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibited by the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
But the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago rejected that argument, affirming the ruling of Urbana-based U.S. Judge Colin Bruce that Johnson's complaints about his isolation and lack of outside exercise did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.
The appellate court ruled narrowly, finding that Johnson's infractions (spitting on guards, refusing to follow orders, damaging property) authorized prison officials to stack one penalty after another on him.
Appellate Justice Diane Sykes wrote that it is "not an Eighth Amendment violation to 'stack' such penalties."
Dissenting Justice Diane Wood disagreed, concluding that the court majority couldn't see the forest for the trees.
Short periods of isolation are permitted, she said, "but somewhere between three weeks and two years, the constitutional line is crossed."
As is its practice, the high court did not explain why it declined to review the case. Its refusal to do so should not be interpreted as official affirmation of the appellate court ruling.
But three justices dissented, with the newest, Ketanji Brown Jackson, suggesting Johnson was subjected to "cruel and unusual punishment" because prison officials were "deliberately indifferent" to his mental and physical health.
Johnson presented a combination of issues to correctional officials. He suffered from mood and anxiety disorders but also was diagnosed with an "antisocial personality disorder." That means he's a sociopath who "consistently shows no regard for right and wrong and ignores the rights and feelings of others."
Jackson said Johnson was held in an unsanitary cell "the size of a parking space" where he, among other things, smeared his feces on everything, including himself.
It sounds hellish and probably was. But what's the best way to deal with inmates whose malignant personalities and mental-health issues make them a constant behavior problem and/or threats to themselves, other inmates and prison employees?
Previous litigation has shown Illinois prisons provide poor mental-health services, one significant factor being the state's inability to hire enough psychiatrists to meet the demand.
Johnson eventually was removed from isolation and transferred to a prison mental-health unit.
Johnson's case is ancient history. He was imprisoned in 2009 for home invasion and assault, and, according to news accounts, held for nine years.
Neither state prison officials nor those at the MacArthur Justice Center responded to inquiries regarding Johnson's current status.
But litigation over the status of inmates has revealed that many suffer from various degrees of mental illness. While Johnson may not be among them anymore, the problem he symbolizes remains in full flower.
