Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

From the UK's Guardian newspaper: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/28/jamycheal-mitchell-virginia-jail-found-dead



Poor guy had mental health issues and by all accounts, should never have been within a 100 miles of a cell.

Glad you keep that racial bias rocking. Keep it classy. The thread title could just as well read:

"Repeated mentally ill law offender found dead in cell"

First of all, a theft is a theft. Period. It's a crime and a crime you can go to jail for. In his case, it wasn't the first time he broke the law, but rather the third...or more. He declined to eat which most likely is the primary death cause given that his body was in a very weakened state. That "poor guy" is a criminal. Hands down.

The fishy thing about the entire issue is the mental hospital / police station relation. The latter claiming the former said they had no available beds with the former saying they didn't know of any request. That must absolutely be looked into as, obviously, Mitchell belonged in a mental hospital rather than in a cell.

Racial bias?

African Americans, especially poor African Americans, are more likely to be jailed than their white American counterparts. They also make up a greater percentage of the prison population than any other group, in the USA. These are cold hard facts. Granted, the reasons for this are complex, but undeniable facts none-the-less.

Given that we've had a plethora of high profile deaths involving police and African Americans in the USA, a logical man would conclude the following:

Either more of these cases are being reported, which is why we hear about them, or there is an institutional problem with policing and African Americans.

Given that the USA has a history of racial prejudice towards African Americans, I would pick the latter.

With regards to mental health, most first world countries tend not to jail people who are mentally ill, the law deeming that they are not responsible for their actions.

From an economics point of view, jailing somebody for stealing $5 dollars is madness. 5 million I could understand, but 5 dollars.

It would cost more to pay the officers, the electricity used in his cell, the paper for the paperwork etc etc

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Poor guy had mental health issues and by all accounts, should never have been within a 100 miles of a cell.

A judge ordered that Mitchell should have been moved to and treated at a state-run mental-health facility after finding that he was not competent to stand trial, but the hospital didn't have any vacancies.

http://www.businessinsider.com/mentally-ill-man-held-in-jail-for-4-months-on-suspicion-of-5-theft-found-dead-in-cell-2015-8#ixzz3kDTbypuA

I agree (but not with the tone of The Guardian article) that he should not have been in a jail cell. Mental health services in the United States needs serious investment and reform. That is what should be taken out of this incident, not the race baiting.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Glad you keep that racial bias rocking. Keep it classy.

Glad you keep your head in the sand on racial issues. Keep it classy.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
With regards to mental health, most first world countries tend not to jail people who are mentally ill, the law deeming that they are not responsible for their actions.

From an economics point of view, jailing somebody for stealing $5 dollars is madness. 5 million I could understand, but 5 dollars.

It would cost more to pay the officers, the electricity used in his cell, the paper for the paperwork etc etc

The law is not, nor should it be run on the basis of economics. If it were then we could save money by using a .22 to execute criminals immediately after sentence (or we could just dispense with trials, that would be cheaper again)

 Ahtman wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Glad you keep that racial bias rocking. Keep it classy.

Glad you keep your head in the sand on racial issues. Keep it classy.

I thought America was a post-racial society?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
With regards to mental health, most first world countries tend not to jail people who are mentally ill, the law deeming that they are not responsible for their actions.

From an economics point of view, jailing somebody for stealing $5 dollars is madness. 5 million I could understand, but 5 dollars.

It would cost more to pay the officers, the electricity used in his cell, the paper for the paperwork etc etc

The law is not, nor should it be run on the basis of economics. If it were then we could save money by using a .22 to execute criminals immediately after sentence (or we could just dispense with trials, that would be cheaper again)

I agree with most of this, but for petty crimes such as stealing a candy bar, is it worth throwing somebody in a cell for 4 months?

Why didn't they just fine the guy or get him sweeping the sidewalk or something?

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
I thought America was a post-racial society?

Darn it I keep forgetting that.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Glad you keep that racial bias rocking. Keep it classy.

Glad you keep your head in the sand on racial issues. Keep it classy.

I thought America was a post-racial society?

Still a lot of work to do IMO, but I definitely think the USA has progressed a long way, and continues to progress.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Poor guy had mental health issues and by all accounts, should never have been within a 100 miles of a cell.

A judge ordered that Mitchell should have been moved to and treated at a state-run mental-health facility after finding that he was not competent to stand trial, but the hospital didn't have any vacancies.

http://www.businessinsider.com/mentally-ill-man-held-in-jail-for-4-months-on-suspicion-of-5-theft-found-dead-in-cell-2015-8#ixzz3kDTbypuA

I agree (but not with the tone of The Guardian article) that he should not have been in a jail cell. Mental health services in the United States needs serious investment and reform. That is what should be taken out of this incident, not the race baiting.

Wasn't my intent to race bait, and the Guardian is notorious for its casual anti-American stance at times, but agree that mental health services need to improve.

Unfortunately, improving mental health services for prisoners is not exactly a vote winner at election times.

 Sigvatr wrote:
First of all, a theft is a theft. Period. It's a crime and a crime you can go to jail for. In his case, it wasn't the first time he broke the law, but rather the third...or more. He declined to eat which most likely is the primary death cause given that his body was in a very weakened state. That "poor guy" is a criminal. Hands down.

Based on reading that article, he had only spent time in gaol, not prison, i.e. he was never found guilty of any crimes. I'd hate to live in a country run by you where someone accused of petty larceny deserves to be held for four months without bail or medical treatment for physical and mental health issues because they apparently stole a snack.

Mitchell previously spent four months in the jail from April 2010, also on charges of petty larceny and trespassing, before being ordered released by the courts

Mitchell returned to the jail in January 2012, again on a petty larceny charge, before being released in May 2012 having spent a month in a state hospital

Now, you could argue that regardless of whether he faced charges, there is a criminal background, and I would not argue with you that he needs either to be charged or get mandatory teratment on this occasion, but four months of lost liberty, during which time he received no healthcare? You really feel that is appropriate. I reckon he needed help, not labelling as a criminal, which in your mind seems to justify any amount of neglect and throwing him on the scrap-heap. Christ, it was not like he even stole beer - it was just food! Unhealthy food, granted, but he probably knew no better!

How did the police allow him to deteriorate into that state. Was nobody watching, or didn't they care?

 loki old fart wrote:
How did the police allow him to deteriorate into that state. Was nobody watching, or didn't they care?

Yes.

Well said.

Going back to the OP, I'm not sure that the fact he was black was (directly) relevant in this situation. Yes, I know how the deck is stacked and so on and so forth as to how he got there in the first place, and yes the US does have a good share of racial inequality, but nonetheless think the real takeaway from this story is that A.) He was in jail for 4 months without a conviction and that B.) even the jail readily admits that he had untreated mental health issues that should have warranted the care he needed rather than imprisonment and C.) this is not the first time someone has starved to death in jail in the last few years. Shameful. What a sad story.

Of course, the important thing is that we're tough on crime, so presumably the upshot of this will be absolutely nothing meaningful.

 loki old fart wrote:
How did the police allow him to deteriorate into that state. Was nobody watching, or didn't they care?

That's what I was wondering. Without knowing more of the story, that is as barbaric as anything out of the Middle East we've been reading about.

This brings up the question as to whether or not his right to a "fair and speedy trial" was violated. Four months in jail without a conviction?

I mean, from a purely economic standpoint, taxpayers spent far more than could ever be recovered from this guy in keeping him locked up, and far, far more than the value of what he stole.

Hell, at the end of the first week, give him probation and send him out the door, case closed, justice served.

Agreed.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I agree with most of this, but for petty crimes such as stealing a candy bar, is it worth throwing somebody in a cell for 4 months?

Why didn't they just fine the guy or get him sweeping the sidewalk or something?

If he has to steal $5 of food do you think that he can afford a fine? To be sentenced to community service that means you have to be before a court, guilty and sentenced. During this process he was found to be mentally ill, and was awaiting a place in a treatment center.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Glad you keep that racial bias rocking. Keep it classy. The thread title could just as well read:

"Repeated mentally ill law offender found dead in cell"

First of all, a theft is a theft. Period. It's a crime and a crime you can go to jail for. In his case, it wasn't the first time he broke the law, but rather the third...or more. He declined to eat which most likely is the primary death cause given that his body was in a very weakened state. That "poor guy" is a criminal. Hands down.

But in america...

*White kid shoplifts, police call the parents, give him a stern talk and sent him home with mom and dad, no charges filed, no trip down town.
*Black kid enters a store, is followed around simply for being black, shoplifts, police throw the book at them, charge them with a crime, book them, neglect to allow the child to call parents for hours, abuse rights and give the kid a 'record' which leads to future abuse.

*White homeless person shoplifts, police pay for the snack and take him down to the local shelter to get him help.
*Black homeless shoplifts, they tackle him to the ground, put him in cuffs, give him a strip search, book him and let the system eat him.

I work with community children and homeless support groups and it is like night and day the difference in treatment people get. Some people are given benefit of the doubt and are seen as someone who needs help, and others are scum-sucking criminals... And sadly it is done along racial lines many times.

This story stinks... no one should be in JAIL for 4 months for a minor crime. It is not defensible or justifiable.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Wasn't my intent to race bait, and the Guardian is notorious for its casual anti-American stance at times, but agree that mental health services need to improve.

Unfortunately, improving mental health services for prisoners is not exactly a vote winner at election times.

I hope you did not take it that I thought you were race baiting, I was hoping to make it cleat that I laid the fault at the feet of The Guardian Having spent a lot of time reading that rag (it was one of the few newspapers that was available online at a previous job, and not blocked by filters) I would go to far as to say that anti-American is it's de facto stance

If people started to examine mental health as a major contributing factor towards mass killings etc. then perhaps it would gain the traction that it deserves.

This reminds me of the story of Kalief Browder:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/06/before-the-law

At 16, he was picked up for robbery and spent 3 years in prison awaiting trial, with a large portion of it in solitary. The prosecution kept delaying the trial while trying to pressure him to take a plea deal. He kept refusing as he maintained his innocence. He was finally released when it was determined that the state had no case. He spent over a 1000 days in jail without having a trial.

Sadly, he committed suicide this June 2015.

The Justice system in America has some serious problems.

 AdeptSister wrote:
The Justice system in America has some serious problems.

I agree with you, but that article makes me think that New York has some serious problems, at least in that particular case.

 AdeptSister wrote:


The Justice system in America has some serious problems.

America has a revenge system. There is some mincing of the words but make no mistake the American criminal system at no point pretends to be (primarily) about protecting the populace, general deterrence, or achieving rehabilitation. We can know this is true because concentrating criminals in poor conditions, for long periods with arbitrary discipline standards is actively counterproductive to any goals other than simple punishment. It'll only turn out more dedicated and hardened criminals, stripped of social and job skills, with fewer avenues in life beyond crime than when they entered.

We follow the retributive model where the primary goal of the system is to punish crime for punishment's sake alone, criminals are to suffer and their suffering has enough moral merit in and of itself to warrant the exist of the system. This is plainly obvious even in the general language that is used to talk about the criminal system one does not "Get serious on public safety" or "Dedicated to creating productive members of society" one gets "Tough on Crime". Success is measured in convictions, and lengths of sentences not in the recidivism rate. The (admittingly very meaningful), deterrence and safety we get are somewhere between secondary goal and happy knock-on effect of the criminals being removed from the general population for some period of time. There is also this nasty undercurrent of the whole for-profit aspect of it, but that's another can of worms entirely.

All that said certainly lots of people do nasty gak and the criminal system finds them, keeps them away from the rest of us and that's a good thing more or less. I'm also sure that on an individual level most of the lawyers, police, prison managers/guards and other people are acting in good faith. However the system as a whole, and our cultural attitudes around it just can't be seen as much beyond the old "Eye for an Eye, and also possibly a leg and your dog" way of doing things.

Well, I don't know anything about the American justice system, but from the statistics on how many people are in prison in the US I get that there is something very, very seriously wrong with it.
Also, this situation just sounds medieval. This should not happen in a developed place like the US.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
If he has to steal $5 of food do you think that he can afford a fine?

If you are an adult and you are stealing cakes, chocolates and soft drink, it's not because you need to steal.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
If he has to steal $5 of food do you think that he can afford a fine?

If you are an adult and you are stealing cakes, chocolates and soft drink, it's not because you need to steal.

Suppose for a moment you're a rather improvised adult. You're poorly educated, didn't grow up with a ton of models to success to follow that weren't crime, you perhaps have some undiagnosed illness physical or mental possibly both or maybe you're just having a gak day, and you're out of money.

You're not starving, you ate yesterday, but you've got a grumble in your belly and you've got nothing to sate it with. You're not entirely sure if and when you'll be able to get more food and/more money, and you're sitting on a street corner looking thinking about your next move. Now you don't tend to think in the particularly long term, I mean most people you know are dead by 40 or so, you've never been taught about saving, or even any of social programs that might be available to you (though if you qualify might be spotty), and you've lived most of your life trying to make it day to day you've just never had time to think about "10 Years from now". Certainly things like nutrition and food choice have never even entered the picture in the least.

Now all that established you're hungry, and kinda grumpy. You look around and you see a convenience store, honestly a place you usually get your food. You look around outside maybe ask people if they can give you a few bucks but you're ignored. You walk in frustrated just to look. Then you decide what the hell, I really want something. You walk down the isles and you just grab whatever looks good. Couple of those hostess things? Yeah those are tasty. What else is good? Chocolate bar, some Coke you guess. That's what's on the shelf away. I guess if you were really health kick you could take a cliff bar, or maybe like I dunno a protein chips or something. However you've never tried those things and you know for sure you like Crunch Bars. Also you know never learned anything about nutrition and you're hungry, and grumpy, and broke chocolate sounds good right now.

I think that's probably the typical mindset of your stealing food from 7-eleven guy, even if not this guy specifically.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
If he has to steal $5 of food do you think that he can afford a fine?

If you are an adult and you are stealing cakes, chocolates and soft drink, it's not because you need to steal.

Maybe 7-11 was fresh out of organic spring mix salad and certified Angus beef filet migon?

If you're not shoplifting from Whole Foods you're clearly not really hungry.

Ouze wrote:
If you're not shoplifting from Whole Foods you're clearly not really hungry.

How else are you meant to get your asparagus water?

 Chongara wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
If he has to steal $5 of food do you think that he can afford a fine?

If you are an adult and you are stealing cakes, chocolates and soft drink, it's not because you need to steal.

Suppose for a moment you're a rather improvised adult. You're poorly educated, didn't grow up with a ton of models to success to follow that weren't crime, you perhaps have some undiagnosed illness physical or mental possibly both or maybe you're just having a gak day, and you're out of money.

You're not starving, you ate yesterday, but you've got a grumble in your belly and you've got nothing to sate it with. You're not entirely sure if and when you'll be able to get more food and/more money, and you're sitting on a street corner looking thinking about your next move. Now you don't tend to think in the particularly long term, I mean most people you know are dead by 40 or so, you've never been taught about saving, or even any of social programs that might be available to you (though if you qualify might be spotty), and you've lived most of your life trying to make it day to day you've just never had time to think about "10 Years from now". Certainly things like nutrition and food choice have never even entered the picture in the least.

Now all that established you're hungry, and kinda grumpy. You look around and you see a convenience store, honestly a place you usually get your food. You look around outside maybe ask people if they can give you a few bucks but you're ignored. You walk in frustrated just to look. Then you decide what the hell, I really want something. You walk down the isles and you just grab whatever looks good. Couple of those hostess things? Yeah those are tasty. What else is good? Chocolate bar, some Coke you guess. That's what's on the shelf away. I


if you were really health kick you could take a cliff bar, or maybe like I dunno a protein chips or something. However you've never tried those things and you know for sure you like Crunch Bars. Also you know never learned anything about nutrition and you're hungry, and grumpy, and broke chocolate sounds good right now.

I think that's probably the typical mindset of your stealing food from 7-eleven guy, even if not this guy specifically.

Very well put.