He allegedly stole $5 of junk food. He died in his jail cell.

[cali]

This young black man was ordered not competent to stand trial and imprisoned until a hospital bed was available. He was in jail for 4 months and had lost 65 pounds while on a hunger strike. He evidently received no care.

The judge has blood on his hands.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/28/jamycheal-mitchell-virginia-jail-found-dead

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2015/0829/Death-of-a-young-black-man-in-a-Virginia-prison-sparks-outrage

[FLPanhandle]

1. The judge ruled correctly.

The judge properly saw the guy needed to be in a hospital and was not competent to stand trial. Kudos to him.

The issue is there is always room in the jail but why is there never any room in the hospitals?

[pnwmom]

2. No one should be jailed for a $5 crime. The judge abused his discretion, IMO. n/t

[Nevernose]

3. I don't know about VA, but the judge might not have had discretion

In many places, the DA would have had the discretion to drop the charges, but the only thing a judge could have done in a case with an incompetent defendant is order a psychiatric hospital, especially if the defendant were a danger to himself or others.

I've seen other cases where any sane system would have granted a reasonable bail, but "tough-minded" legislators have fucked up the bail system so badly that judges no longer have discretion.

In just saying that, without knowing a lot more about Virginia's laws and court rules, it's tough to blame the judge. In my experience, the problem is occasionally judicial, but always DA and police related. And in this case, the mental health care system is equally to blame.

[cali]

4. incorrect. There are outpatient services for people

with diagnosed mental illnesses. The judge could have ordered him into an outpatient program.

That you think.it's ok for someone to be in jail for 4 months for stealing $5 of food is disturbing.

[Igel]

5. There are, to be sure.

But he wasn't taking his meds in jail.

He wasn't able to put his nearest relatives on his visitors list.

He wasn't competent. He needed a guardian. He had none. The aunt didn't have custody. She couldn't speak for the guy.

Judges don't watch every case closely. They rule. Then they wait for the result and typically say when to report back. If what they say to happen doesn't happen and there's no guardian or person appointed to speak for the person in custody until then, that doesn't happen. The judge gave instructions. They were up for review in a couple of weeks, IIRC. He may have had awareness of his illness; he may not have. Doesn't matter in the least.

He should have been institutionalized, evaluated, stabilized, and his case sent back to have a guardian appointed. A lawyer should have been appointed to defend his interests; such is a nasty business, because many lawyers have the "official" interests of his client in mind and that's often just mindless resistance. "No" to everything. My mother's lawyer said "no" to everything until she made it very clear in the judge's presence that what he was saying was sugar-coated and bordering on the inaccurate. But defending her liberty was his goal and responsibility, and since she was still free with rights he had to respect her wishes. He spent much of the latter 1/3 of her custody hearing face down on his desk as she ranted and gave full vent to her delusions.

BTW, unless it's a caring relative, most such situations also end rather poorly. Not necessarily with death, but abuse of psych patient by professional "guardian and custodial" companies is frequent.

[Initech]

6. Our prison system is in dire need of serious reform.