The tragic murder of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska on a Charlotte, North Carolina light rail train has provoked yet another argument about crime. That’s not surprising given the politics of the day and that the suspect in the murder, Decarlos Brown, had a lengthy criminal record, including charges for armed robbery.
However, focusing on the criminal justice aspects may obscure an equally important issue: the failure of public policy to deal with the mentally ill homeless population. Brown is a diagnosed schizophrenic who apparently believed that machines implanted in his body were controlling him. After the murder, he allegedly told authorities that Zarutska had been reading his mind. He has been homeless, sporadically living at a local shelter, for some time. Yet, the system seemed to have little ability to deal with him or his problems.
The criminal justice system can do little more than lock him up, and it did. He served six years for the armed robbery conviction. But the prison system is not equipped to treat mental illness. In fact, some studies show that jailing the homeless can make their mental health problems worse. So, when his sentence was over, he was simply dumped back on the street.
During a subsequent encounter, Brown reportedly told police about the machines controlling him. According to police reports, “Officers advised Brown that the issue was a medical issue and that there was nothing further they could do.” When “Brown became upset and called 911 demanding to speak with police,” officers arrested him for misusing 911. Unsurprisingly, he was later released with orders to report for a psychological evaluation. It is unclear whether that evaluation ever took place. Regardless, Brown was soon back to living on the street and still receiving no treatment for his mental illness.
The ‘Housing First’ policy that has dominated the policy approach to homelessness in recent years would have provided Brown with shelter, a good thing as far as it goes, though at great expense. But it would have done nothing to deal with his underlying problems, including his mental illness.
In such cases, cities and states must have a legal mechanism for ensuring people do not become violent or endanger themselves through self-harm or self-neglect. These people need legal custodians until they are capable of safely caring for themselves. Some need to be removed from society, institutionalized for treatment, until they are no longer a danger.
Policymakers must recognize that deinstitutionalization took place with broad bipartisan support because of truly horrendous abuses in mental health facilities. Moreover, institutionalization was often highly discriminatory and thus remains ripe for abuse.
Given this history of maltreatment, officials must exercise caution if they expand or strengthen involuntary commitment. Policymakers must respect individual autonomy and lawful lifestyle choices, even if they disapprove of them. When dealing with people suffering from both homelessness and debilitating mental illness or substance use, policymakers must carefully balance the need for personal autonomy with the recognition that some people are unable—at least temporarily—to sensibly make or understand the consequences of their choices.
For instance, Brown’s mother reportedly sought to have him committed to a psychiatric facility earlier this year because she was concerned about his propensity towards violence, but was unable to obtain the court order necessary to do so. Certainly there should have been a mechanism that enabled her to get him off the street and into treatment.
One such mechanism might be California’s “conservatorship courts,” which allows family members, mental health providers, and first responders who have a history of engagement with a mentally ill individual to refer that person to a special judicial proceeding. Importantly, the court assigns a public defender to anyone so referred to help protect their rights and interests. Significantly, the conservatorship can include provisions for involuntary treatment and even involuntary commitment.
Of course, federal, state, and local officials must also ensure that the resources are available to house and treat people who are involuntarily committed. Simply warehousing people in need is not enough.
Iryna Zarutska’s murder is a horrible tragedy. Our hearts go out to her and her friends and family. But if policymakers are willing to stop the grandstanding and begin a serious conversation about how to best deal with the mentally ill and homelessness, perhaps something better could still come out of this senseless tragedy.