Prisoners In Solitary Confinement: What Happens To A Person In Extreme Isolation

Here is video of a Google+ Hangout I participated in early today. 9 News investigative reporter Jace Larson, 9 Wants To Know Executive Producer Nicole Vap, and I discuss what happens to an individual's psyche after years of isolation in solitary confinement.

Here is the video:



Thanks for watching-- Max Wachtel, Ph.D.
www.CherryCreekPsychology.com
www.Facebook.com/drmaxwachtel
www.Twitter.com/mwachtel
www.YouTube.com/drmaxwachtel

What Is The Legal Definition of Insane in Colorado?

Jeremy Jojola, 9 News investigative reporter, looked into the Aurora theater shooter's likely insanity plea in a great story from last night. He interviewed me as part of his investigation. Here is the video:



So, what exactly does it take for someone to be legally insane? Of course, no rational person would commit such a horrendous crime. But, being abnormal, or mentally ill for that matter, is not the same as being insane. Here is a breakdown of the definition for insanity in Colorado (C.R.S. § 16.8.-101.5):

1. The person must be "diseased or defective in mind." This is typically translated as having a mental illness (almost always a psychotic thought disorder like Schizophrenia or Schizoaffective Disorder). To be considered mentally diseased or defective, a condition must "grossly and demonstrably impair a person's perception or understanding of reality." Drugs and alcohol don't count, and neither does a diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder. You can't be hammered and claim you were insane. Same goes with being a psychopath.

2. The person must have the "diseased or defective" mind at the time of the crime. It doesn't matter how psychotic he is right now. What matters is how psychotic he was at the time of the offense.

3. The person's significant mental illness (the diseased or defective mind) must cause the person to either be incapable of distinguishing right from wrong, or from being able to form "the culpable mental state of the crime charged." For the theater shooting, the culpable mental state is "knowingly," meaning he would need to be certain in his understanding that his actions were going to cause people to be murdered.

4. Look back at Bullet Point #3 again. Notice there is an 'either or' structure to it. If his mental illness caused him to not know right from wrong or be unable to form the culpable mental state, then he was insane at the time of the offense. He does not need to meet both of those criteria, just one of them.

5. "Moral obliquity" or "mental depravity" cannot lead to legal insanity. Roughly translated into English people can actually understand, this means a person who is a psychopath cannot be considered insane, even if his psychopathic nature leads him to be unable to understand right from wrong.

6. "Passion growing out of anger, revenge [,or] hatred" does not count either. Even when a person becomes extremely angry, blacks out in a blind rage, and loses the ability to form the culpable mental state, he is still legally sane.

And that is it. The legal definition of insanity in Colorado. To recap:

Insanity is a mental disease or defect that causes a person to not know right from wrong or not know that what he is doing will lead to an intended outcome. Drugs and alcohol don't count. Psychopathic tendencies don't count. Anger and revenge don't count.

If the theater shooter changes his plea to Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity, this is the definition his psychiatrist will use when evaluating him, and this is what the jury will use to make their decision in the case.

Thanks for watching-- Max Wachtel, Ph.D.
www.CherryCreekPsychology.com
www.Facebook.com/drmaxwachtel
www.Twitter.com/mwachtel
www.YouTube.com/drmaxwachtel

Not Guilty By Reason Of Insanity: The Aurora Theater Shooter Will Change His Plea on Monday

With the news that the Aurora theater shooter will be changing his plea to Not Guilty By Reason Of Insanity, 9 News called upon me for some information about what a sanity evaluation entails.

Here is the story from this morning, May 8, where 9 News legal analyst Scott Robinson and I discuss the issue further:



Thanks for watching-- Max Wachtel, Ph.D.
www.CherryCreekPsychology.com
www.Twitter.com/mwachtel
www.Facebook.com/drmaxwachtel
www.YouTube.com/drmaxwachtel

Amanda Berry's Real Life Superhero: Charles Ramsey Refuses To Ignore A Person In Distress

Charles Ramsey, the man who helped Amanda Berry escape after a decade

Here is video of Charles Ramsey, the man who helped Amanda Berry escape her captors, being interviewed. He is a true character, and a real-life hero.

Mr. Ramsey stands as a strong reminder of the power of helping your neighbors and refusing to turn a blind eye on domestic violence. And, he throws in a bruising social critique at the end of the interview (when asked when he knew something was amiss, he replied, "Bro, I knew something was wrong when a little, pretty white girl ran into a black man's arms. Something is wrong here. Dead giveaway.")

Bravo, Mr. Ramsey. Strong work.


Thanks for reading/watching-- Max Wachtel, Ph.D.
www.CherryCreekPsychology.com
www.Facebook.com/drmaxwachtel
www.Twitter.com/mwachtel
www.YouTube.com/drmaxwachtel

How Liability Has Changed Over The Years: Waube v. Warrington (1935)

Is it reasonable to assume you might experience some
emotional difficulties after witnessing this car accident?

In previous posts, I have discussed the Zone of Danger, and how a driver's liability extends beyond the physical proximity to an auto accident. Most famously, a case from 1965 (Dillon v. Legg) extended a driver's responsibility for damages from only those individuals at risk of physical danger to those at risk of emotional distress as well. In the Dillon case, a mother was able to collect damages from a negligent driver because she witnessed the driver strike and kill her daughter with his car. Presumably, she developed Posttraumatic Stress Disorder after witnessing the accident.

The idea that the zone of danger could extend to include emotional damages for an individual who did not actually fear for his/her own life was groundbreaking in 1965. Today, it seems obvious.

In 1935, however, courts had a very different opinion than they do today. On March 24 of 1934, Susie Waube witnessed Amber Warrington run over and kill Ms. Waube's infant daughter. Ms. Waube was terribly sick at the time, and she was so distraught over her daughter's death that she retreated to her bed and died several weeks later. Her attorney successfully argued that Ms. Waube's death was a direct result of the Ms. Warrington's negligent driving and the driver was found to owe Ms. Waube's husband damages due to wrongful death.

Ms. Warrington appealed the decision to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, who heard the case in November of 1934. In January of 1935, the Court overruled the lower court. The Court "balanced the social interests involved in order to ascertain how far a defendant's duty and a plaintiff's right must justly and expediently have been extended." It was the Wisconsin's Supreme Court's ruling that a plaintiff was not entitled to recover damages "for physical injuries sustained by one out of the range of ordinary physical peril as a result of the shock of witnessing another's danger."

In other words, because Susie Waube sustained physical injuries (in this case, death), only due to the shock of watching her daughter's demise, the driver of the car was not legally responsible. The Court's ruling made it clear that Ms. Waube was not in any physical danger as a result of the accident, and that lack of physical danger absolved the driver of responsibility for Ms. Waube's death.

What mental health professionals understand now is that it does not matter if a person is in actual physical danger--severe anxiety, depression, and negative physical health effects can be caused by witnessing a terrible accident. We don't have to be so close to the accident that we might get hurt by the car in order to suffer significant damages. Three decades after Waube v. Warrington, The Dillon v. Legg case was a big step toward courts gaining a crucial understanding of the importance of emotional pain and the full extent of the risks caused by negligent drivers.

Thanks for reading-- Max Wachtel, Ph.D.
www.CherryCreekPsychology.com
www.Facebook.com/drmaxwachtel
www.Twitter.com/mwachtel
www.YouTube.com/drmaxwachtel

My Recent 9 News Interview: Balancing Privacy With Public Protection

Todd Walker reported on an interesting story yesterday--Litttleton, Colorado police issued a safety alert because a man with a mental illness had threatened to "shoot up" a hospital and a Target store. The police did not take him into custody because they felt his threats were not specific enough.

I was interviewed for the story, talking about the need to balance a patient's privacy with the protection of the public.

Here is the video:



Thanks for watching-- Max Wachtel, Ph.D.
www.CherryCreekPsychology.com
www.Facebook.com/drmaxwachtel
www.Twitter.com/mwachtel
www.YouTube.com/drmaxwachtel

Know Your Miranda Rights: Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Ernesto Miranda's Mugshot

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you do say can and will be used against you in a court of law.

We have heard those words a million times. On every cop show in the U.S., police officers read suspects their "rights" as soon as the handcuffs come out.

Have you ever noticed the police officers on the reality television show Cops never read people their rights when they are being arrested? Why is that?

Also, did you know a proper Miranda warning is more than just the right to remain silent?

In 1966, the US Supreme Court heard the case of Miranda v. Arizona. Ernesto Miranda had been convicted of kidnapping and rape in Arizona, but he argued the confession he gave to police should not have been used to convict him because he was not aware of his Constitutional Rights (specifically, his Fifth Amendment Right against self-incrimination and his Sixth Amendment Right of assistance of counsel). The Court agreed and reversed his conviction.

The State of Arizona retried Mr. Miranda, excluding his confession during the new trial. He was convicted again and sent to prison. He was paroled in 1972, and he sold autographed copies of the Miranda warning to earn a living. He later died of stab wounds inflicted during a bar fight.

So, what are your rights? When do police need to read them to you? What evidence can be used against you in court? Here are some helpful bits of information:

1. Here is the language from the original Miranda decision in 1966: "The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him."

2. The exact wording of a Miranda warning will differ from state to state. Subsequent legal decisions made it clear that the wording does not need to be the same in every state, as long as the warning covers the Fifth and Sixth Amendment Rights from the 1966 Miranda v. Arizona decision.

3. Most states have changed the word "interrogation" to "questioning." They have also changed the wording "indigent" to "if you cannot afford an attorney."

4. Many states have added language to their Miranda warning explaining that, once you start answering questions, you can exercise your Fifth Amendment Right and stop answering them at any point. Others have added wording explaining you can exercise your rights at any time.

5. Notice the phrase "The person in custody" from the blue text above. If you are not in police custody, you do not need to have a Miranda warning read to you. Essentially, if a reasonable person would know he/she is free to leave at any point, he/she is not in police custody when talking to detectives. Just because you are at a police station does not mean you are in custody. When in doubt, ask, "Am I in your custody?" or "Am I under arrest?"

6. Also, notice the phrase, "prior to interrogation." The police do not need to read you your rights immediately after they arrest you (i.e. take you into custody). They only need to give you a Miranda warning before they start asking you questions to gather evidence. If you say something incriminating in the police car on the ride to the police station prior to being Mirandized, that information will most likely be used against you and will not be thrown out by the judge.

7. There is a "public safety" and/or "national security" exception to the Miranda warning. If the police interrogate you prior to a Miranda warning just to make other arrests easier (if they are looking for accomplices, for example), that information should be thrown out. But, if the police are concerned for the safety of others, they can interrogate you without a Miranda warning. An example of this would be if you have placed bombs all over the city and the police catch you. They will ask you all kinds of questions about where the other bombs are without a Miranda warning in order to keep people from getting hurt. That is legal, and the information you provide can typically be used against you in court.

8. You retain all Constitutional Rights, regardless of whether a police officer reads you a Miranda warning. To say otherwise would be akin to arguing you do not have the right to bear arms until someone reads you the Second Amendment. You always have the right to remain silent and you always have the right to an attorney, regardless of when your Miranda warning is read to you.

9. This is important: You must explicitly exercise your Fifth Amendment or Sixth Amendment Rights when in custody. Otherwise, police officers will continue interrogating you. You will not be able to argue to the judge later on that you did not want to talk to police so you tried to stay silent, but they finally wore you down after six hours of questioning. That 'worn down' confession will be used against you.

You need to specifically tell the police you are not going to talk to them and you are invoking your right to remain silent. The police will immediately stop asking you questions when you say that. If you specifically tell them you do not want to answer questions until you talk to an attorney, they will stop questioning you and provide you with a lawyer.

If you don't say either of those things (i.e. if you don't exercise your rights), they can question you for hours, even if you do not respond to them.

10. This is REALLY important: If you sign a Miranda warning form at a police station, you are waiving your Fifth and Sixth Amendment Rights, and the police will interrogate you for as long as it takes them to get useful information. If you do not sign the form, they will not ask you questions.

11. This is EVEN MORE important: If you waive your Miranda rights, you can still invoke them later on. If you sign the form and talk to police for 30 minutes, and then you realize you want an attorney, you can exercise your rights and the police will be required to hold off on the interrogation.

I hope this helps clarify the Miranda warning. Thanks for reading-- Max Wachtel, Ph.D.
www.CherryCreekPsychology.com
www.Facebook.com/drmaxwachtel
www.Twitter.com/mwachtel
www.YouTube.com/drmaxwachtel