When it comes to limiting the practice of holding a mentally ill person in a jail even though they face no criminal charges, the Mississippi Legislature’s heart is in the right place.
House Bill 1640, which Gov. Tate Reeves signed into law recently, is designed to limit such action. Previously, people going through a civil commitment process for mental-health treatment could be put in jail if county officials decided there was no other place to hold them.
Putting people in jail who have committed no crime is against everything this country stands for.
The new law restricts this practice. People in the commitment process can only be put in jail without charges if they are “actively violent,” and can only be held behind bars for a maximum of 48 hours. A judge must approve requests to hold them in jail.
Further, the new law “requires the mental health professional who recommends commitment to document why less-restrictive treatment is not an option. And before paperwork can be filed to initiate the commitment process, a staffer with a local community mental health center must assess the person’s condition.”
The bill Reeves signed won praise from county officials who handle civil commitments and from groups representing sheriffs and supervisors. The state Department of Mental Health also praised the bill, as a spokesman said it would put people first by connecting a person who needs mental health services with a mental health professional as a first step in the process.
There is reason to hope the new law means fewer mentally ill people will be put in jail, and that the average number of days such people spend behind bars without charges will be significantly reduced.
But it’s important to remember that county officials weren’t putting mentally ill people in jail for fun. They made the decision because they feared the people awaiting commitment were a danger, either to themselves or others.
That puts another demand on the Legislature to make sure the state has enough space outside of jails to hold mentally ill people during the commitment process. This may mean expanding existing facilities or building an additional one.
It might be hard to criticize that decision. What if a patient was threatening to kill himself or others? Is that someone you let out of jail? It’s almost as if officials have to encourage a patient to commit a crime, because then they’d be allowed to keep him behind bars.
Looking at the issue realistically, the new bill sets reasonable restrictions on the confinement of people awaiting commitment. But that is only the first step. The state needs an accurate count of mental-illness jail cases to assess the size of the problem, and then must determine if it needs more facilities — not jail cells — to hold them.
-30-
