Inmate not guilty in fetal alcohol defects case

Status
Not open for further replies.

tk149

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2002
7,253
1
0
http://host.madison.com/ct/news/loc...cle_75c9b91a-c64b-11de-877c-001cc4c03286.html

Tyler Mills finally got what he wanted: a mental defect that carries some weight in court.
The 30-year-old state prison inmate last week was found not guilty of a crime because of defects caused by his exposure to alcohol when still in the womb. Experts who track court cases involving fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) say it's the first time in Wisconsin a defendant has been found to be not guilty because of the array of physical and mental defects caused by alcohol use by pregnant women.
And some think it could open the door to a more enlightened approach to dealing with criminal defendants suffering the effects of the disorder.
Todd Winstrom, formerly an attorney for Disability Rights Wisconsin, the state-appointed advocacy group for disabled individuals, says the case sets an important precedent.
"Fetal alcohol has actually finally achieved some legal recognition in Wisconsin as a condition that could lead someone to be found not guilty by reason of insanity," says Winstrom, who for years tried to get jails to provide Mills with the psychological and medical treatment he needed. "The hope that this gives me is that the system now will respond to Tyler and hopefully to others like him with an approach that's grounded more in an understanding of the disorder and some attempt to provide treatment and intervention rather than corrections and punishment."
For Mills, its a hard-won personal victory that comes after years of disappointment.
"I think it was my stubbornness that paid off," he says.
In early 2008, Mills was being passed from jail to jail in counties where he had committed a string of petty financial crimes, mostly stealing credit cards. He says a man he met in a federal corrections halfway house led him on the crime spree. But the charge that landed him his current seven-and-a-half-year prison sentence was child enticement. The charge stemmed from Mills' attempt to meet up with a 14-year-old girl he met on the Internet, whom he later discovered was a police officer conducting an Internet sting operation.
An Eau Claire County jury in that case found that while his fetal alcohol defects constituted a mental disease, they didn't cause him to commit the crime.
Last week Mills appeared in Pierce County court to answer to two charges of identity theft, both for stealing ID cards. In a deal struck between his attorney and prosecutors he agreed to plead guilty to both charges. But the district attorney agreed to stipulate that on one charge he was not guilty by reason of mental defect. The judge ordered three years of commitment by the state Department of Health Services to be carried out concurrently with his current sentence, which will likely mean he will go to a mental hospital.
He's currently appealing his Eau Claire County conviction, but if he fails he will have to spend another two years in prison to finish off his sentence in that case in addition to his mental commitment.
In itself, Tyler Mill's plea hearing was an insignificant court event, one of thousands of plea deals reached every year in Wisconsin courts. But for defendants with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, which some estimate make up thousands of Wisconsin prison inmates, and their advocates, it's a ray of hope.
The resolution would have had more impact as a precedent if it had been decided by a judge or a jury, rather than being the result of an agreement between attorneys. "It would have been better had it been on record in terms of a ruling," says Natalie Novick Brown, a clinical psychologist at the University of Washington's Fetal Alcohol and Drug Unit. But she says that because a judge endorsed the defense argument that Mills was not guilty because of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, "We still regard it as a foot in the door."
Novick Brown says recent years have seen an increased volume of case law dealing with fetal alcohol issues, mostly death row cases such as a recent Nevada case where the perpetrator was spared the death penalty. One case involving a Louisiana death row inmate was even considered by the U.S. Supreme Court, but the court eventually denied review.
"The fact that there is growing awareness in the legal system is positive," says Novick Brown, who spends much of her time supporting the cases of criminal defendants with FASD and who has testified on behalf of Mills during his trial.
The resolution of Mills' case, she says, "is just another indication that people are paying attention to FASD as a legal argument."
But the attorney who struck the deal on Mills' behalf, Liesl Nelson of Hudson, questions the value of the case as a precedent. "I don't know that it necessarily throws the door open for the next guy that comes along," she says.
But Nelson praised Pierce County District Attorney John O'Boyle, who didn't return a phone call seeking comment, for going along with the agreement.
"I really respect a prosecutor who finally looks at this and goes, 'Let's do the smart thing here,'" she says. "I really give him a lot of points for that because nobody else has been able to do that yet, to say, 'Let's try smarter, not harder.'"
A Capital Times story in May 2008 chronicled Mills' odyssey through the criminal justice system at a time when his appalling behavior in jails usually got him thrown into solitary confinement, which typically inspired even worse behavior. He infuriated prison officials by creating scenes, attempting suicide, spreading food and feces on the wall of his cell. He has a compulsion for eating objects like tooth brushes, razor blades and pencils, and on at least one occasion jail officials refused to provide medical treatment for complications from objects lodged in his stomach.
Mills had been facing more than 100 years in possible prison time mostly for petty financial crimes. Most of those cases have been resolved, many of them dismissed because of the time and expense it would have taken to prosecute them. Only the Pierce County case remained.
"It was the last chance he had to persuade someone that his fetal alcohol was an important factor," says Nelson, his attorney. "That was a huge moment for him, to have somebody acknowledge that."
It is still unclear when Mills' mental commitment would start. He was taken from Pierce County to the Wisconsin Resource Center, the Department of Corrections program facility where he spent the last year. The center gives Mills a job, puts him in classes and keeps him busy every minute of the day, providing a rigid daily structure that is the only way many with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder can function. Most experts consider solitary confinement to be one of the worst possible punishments, but one Mills is all too familiar with.
As his Pierce County case wound down, the Department of Corrections was on the verge of sending Mills back to the general prison population, where if his past is any guide he would undoubtedly act out, and once again find himself alone, staring at the wall of a cell.
Nelson says after the Department of Corrections and the Department of Health Services hashes out the details, they'll likely send Mills to a mental treatment facility. The Corrections Department would be crazy to want him, she says. Placing him back in prison where there are no resources to deal with his behavior problems would be punishment not only to Mills, but to corrections personnel as well.
"They just don't have the resources to deal with him."

So I'm kind of torn here. On the one hand, this guy committed crimes that hurt other people, and therefore should be locked up and punished. On the other hand, he has FASD. I have seen the results of FASD, and it's very clear that a severe case results in severe impairment in reasoning and memory.

So what we have here is someone who has a long history of petty crimes (culminating in an attempt to do bad things to an underaged girl), who is mentally impaired, is not ever likely to improve, and is probably incapable of functioning in regular society.

He may not deserve to be thrown in jail, but he should be locked up in a mental hospital until he's proven that he can obey society's rules.

This case, while isolated and not given the force of a judge's decision, could still influence future cases where someone mentally impaired commits a crime. At what point should punishment be mitigated in borderline cases?

Moral: Don't drink while pregnant. Just don't.
 

Apple Of Sodom

Golden Member
Oct 7, 2007
1,808
0
0
I don't understand how this works. There are social norms and rules recognized be almost every society on earth, whether it is USA, Russia, or even the smallest tribes in the Amazon. Incest is taboo, as well as rape, murder, stealing etc. Most of us understand this and abide by laws. Sure, some may break laws because of personal beliefs (e.g. drug use) or because of the reward (stealing) or because of anger (murder.) But all in all, most of the laws with harsh penalties (drug laws aside) we can all agree that these laws or pretty decent and make sense.

So it follows that if 99.9% of us can follow these laws and the other .1% break them, then there is something wrong with that person. Whether it is lack of conscience, lack of empathy, or the inablity to control anger or sexual urges, this fraction of society that breaks these laws has some sort of mental defect. Whether it was bred into you, due to stress, or even desperation, in the end does it really matter?

The point of laws and jail time is to keep this very small segment of society under control and keep the rest of us in line. Who cares what the reason behind the crime is? Mitigating circumstances don't really lessen the crime.

I'm not saying that alternatives to punishment shouldn't exist - for example a drug addict stealing to feed his addiction should be able to get help for the root problem and spend less time locked up. But someone is born with FASD and because of that is given a free pass? I'm sorry you got a shitty hand in life, but if you have FASD and cannot control yourself you still need to be locked up, just as much as the sick businessmen who prey on children. In other words, they all have something wrong with them. Just because someone can diagnose one reason and not the other doesn't mean the one who has been diagnosed should be treated any different.

I'm sure everyone would like an excuse like this for the sick things they do.
 

ZzZGuy

Golden Member
Nov 15, 2006
1,855
0
0
I don't understand how this works. There are social norms and rules recognized be almost every society on earth, whether it is USA, Russia, or even the smallest tribes in the Amazon. Incest is taboo, as well as rape, murder, stealing etc. Most of us understand this and abide by laws. Sure, some may break laws because of personal beliefs (e.g. drug use) or because of the reward (stealing) or because of anger (murder.) But all in all, most of the laws with harsh penalties (drug laws aside) we can all agree that these laws or pretty decent and make sense.

So it follows that if 99.9% of us can follow these laws and the other .1% break them, then there is something wrong with that person. Whether it is lack of conscience, lack of empathy, or the inablity to control anger or sexual urges, this fraction of society that breaks these laws has some sort of mental defect. Whether it was bred into you, due to stress, or even desperation, in the end does it really matter?

The point of laws and jail time is to keep this very small segment of society under control and keep the rest of us in line. Who cares what the reason behind the crime is? Mitigating circumstances don't really lessen the crime.

I'm not saying that alternatives to punishment shouldn't exist - for example a drug addict stealing to feed his addiction should be able to get help for the root problem and spend less time locked up. But someone is born with FASD and because of that is given a free pass? I'm sorry you got a shitty hand in life, but if you have FASD and cannot control yourself you still need to be locked up, just as much as the sick businessmen who prey on children. In other words, they all have something wrong with them. Just because someone can diagnose one reason and not the other doesn't mean the one who has been diagnosed should be treated any different.

I'm sure everyone would like an excuse like this for the sick things they do.


Your post shows that you are ignorant of what mental illness is, most notability what is bolded. You say that if someone commits a crime they must be mentally ill and that use of mental illness is a way for criminals to scam their way out of a harsher sentence. And what I take as a belief that jail time would work just as well to "set them straight".

First, being a criminal does not mean you are mentally ill. Making a decision to brake a law for any sort of personal gain with the hope you will not get caught or not caring you will get caught is not the same as being incapable of realizing what I have stated just above is wrong.

To expect a deterrent such as as jail time would work on someone unable to judge whether or not their actions are wrong is just as insane. Throwing people with such mental illness into jail only serve two purposes, to keep them isolated from others and to satisfy someones need for revenge. But when it comes time to release them back into society they are just as bad or worse off then when you locked them up.

Now, not all mental illness is the same and needs to be judged on a case by case basis. If the person in the OP has a mental illness but can still tell right from wrong then by all means throw them in jail along with proper mental treatment so when they are released they can function in society. If however the person is unable to tell right from wrong then jail does nothing, and placing him into a mental institution until he is deemed to be fit to be released is the only proper course of action even if your need for revenge is not sated.
 
Last edited:

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,913
3,892
136
I'm sure everyone would like an excuse like this for the sick things they do.

Everyone would like large sections of their brain replaced with fat cells before they're born? People with this condition can't just will neurons to grow into the holes in their brain. :rolleyes:

If his brain is structurally incapable of operating normally, then he at the very least needs lifelong supervision or at the worst institutionalization.
 

Apple Of Sodom

Golden Member
Oct 7, 2007
1,808
0
0
I don't believe for a minute that he didn't know what he was doing was wrong, at least for the theft cases.

Being a criminal doesn't mean you are mentally ill by the definition. My argument is that if you are the type of person who can go out and rape or murder then you are mentally ill.

Tell me one person you know who you would describe as a perfectly normal, very nice person who just so happens to "be a rapist, but he is working on it." It isn't a personality defect...

He was born with FASD...but that shouldn't matter any more than someone that is born a sociopath or born with no ability to feel guilt.

Some mentally ill people don't know the difference between right and wrong. Still others know the difference and choose not to do the right thing. In the end isn't it all the same?
 

Apple Of Sodom

Golden Member
Oct 7, 2007
1,808
0
0
Everyone would like large sections of their brain replaced with fat cells before they're born? People with this condition can't just will neurons to grow into the holes in their brain. :rolleyes:

If his brain is structurally incapable of operating normally, then he at the very least needs lifelong supervision or at the worst institutionalization.

That isn't what I said. No one wants FASD. But at the same time no one would actually choose to be born a sociopath either.

Cn we institutionalize all them then before they actually commit a crime? "These people with this disorder cannot tell right from wrong and may commit crimes that they cannot be punished for because of this condition. Therefore, they will spend life under our supervision."

I have a 6 year old, as as 6 year olds tend to do, she doesn't make the best decisions. Anyone with kids can tell you they need constant supervision. Of course they end up growing into adults and out of that stage. But, under no circumstances, would I let my 6 year old live alone or go into public alone. It would be a disaster for many reasons. And because of this, it is actually illegal for me to leave my 6 year old alone at home or in a car or at the movies...so why should it be any different for someone mentally ill that cannot make decisions?

I'm not trying to be a jerk...just trying to spur discussion. I'm not saying "lock em all up" but find it a little odd that we say "This person has FASD and is mentally ill. This other person just rapes people and isn't mentally ill."
 

ZzZGuy

Golden Member
Nov 15, 2006
1,855
0
0
I don't believe for a minute that he didn't know what he was doing was wrong, at least for the theft cases.

Being a criminal doesn't mean you are mentally ill by the definition. My argument is that if you are the type of person who can go out and rape or murder then you are mentally ill.

Tell me one person you know who you would describe as a perfectly normal, very nice person who just so happens to "be a rapist, but he is working on it." It isn't a personality defect...

He was born with FASD...but that shouldn't matter any more than someone that is born a sociopath or born with no ability to feel guilt.

Some mentally ill people don't know the difference between right and wrong. Still others know the difference and choose not to do the right thing. In the end isn't it all the same?

No.

In that same paragraph you yourself stated it is not the same.

And how often do you hear "Oh but he was such a nice man" from a neighbor when they learn the person living next to them for the past 10 years had a body or two in his basement? What is to you a perfectly normal person can be a criminal, they do not need to be foaming at the mouth or telling the voices in his head to shut up in order to steal a candy bar or to rape and murder a woman. What you believe Apple Of Sodom is wrong (not morally objectionable wrong, just simply wrong).
 

Apple Of Sodom

Golden Member
Oct 7, 2007
1,808
0
0
No.

In that same paragraph you yourself stated it is not the same.

And how often do you hear "Oh but he was such a nice man" from a neighbor when they learn the person living next to them for the past 10 years had a body or two in his basement? What is to you a perfectly normal person can be a criminal, they do not need to be foaming at the mouth or telling the voices in his head to shut up in order to steal a candy bar or to rape and murder a woman. What you believe Apple Of Sodom is wrong (not morally objectionable wrong, just simply wrong).

I perform action A which is wrong. I either perform this action because I didn't know it was wrong, or I perform this action because I chose not to do the right thing. Action A is still performed and the end result is the same.

I don't think every criminal is foaming at the mouth. Bernie Madoff did it for greed. But don't you think there has to be a little something wrong upstairs for someone like John Muhammad to think it is acceptable to start killing random people? Are you telling me that you think he was completely sane? If so, do you think that someone like me or you are capable of performing this act?

My brother knew a guy growing up who went to prison as an accomplice to murder. Why? The man he shared a cab with didn't want to pay the cab driver so he took out a gun and shot the cab driver in the head. Are you telling me these are the actions of a sane person?

A serial rapist lives next door to you and even though he may seem normal and you may say "he was such a nice, normal, quiet guy" I would have to say yes, that may be true, but he was insane, as only someone who has something wrong in their brain is capable of going out and raping women. Whether it is nature or nurture or whatever, something went wrong.

Subject A hears voices in his head telling him to kill people and he does.

Subject B has anger control issues, loses it and guns down many people in a killing spree.

If medication and counseling can help Subject A control the voices, then can't medicne help Subject B control his violent rage?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.