|
|
|
The views expressed on this page are soley
those of the author and do not
necessarily represent the views of County
News Online
|
 |
Proposed Ohio House Bill 338: Helpful or harmful
By Melissa Martin, PhD
“Despite the fact that most people with serious mental illnesses are
never violent, and 95-97% of gun violence is not caused by a mental
illness, the involvement of people with acute mental illnesses in some
recent incidents of mass gun violence has become a significant issue in
American society.” www.mentalhealthamerica.net.
On Sept. 17, 2019, Ohio House Representative Dave Greenspan (District
16) announced the introduction of House Bill 338, known as the Mental
Health Awareness and Community Violence Protection Act. And I did a
double-take at the potential for violation of human rights in Ohio.
So, instead of trying to understand the gabble (Is it really necessary
to make legislation information so darn difficult to comprehend?) of
proposed legislation on the official Ohio government website, I read
the PowerPoint presentation option at
www.ohiolis.sharefile.com.
Th following is my interpretation of HB 338: Any person who verbally
makes any statement of threat to another person about community
violence can be reported to and questioned by police concerning his/her
mental health status. Next, the police can request a mental health
assessment by a professional. The person can be held up to 24
hours—held where? Next, the person can be taken into custody or taken
to a hospital. If the police officer files a petition, the person can
be held for up to 72 hours—held where? Next, a court hearing date is
set no later then 3 days when the petition is filed. “At the hearing
for a potential risk protection order…the petition must prove, by proof
beyond a reasonable doubt, that the respondent presents a significant
risk…” The potential risk order is for 180 days and can be extended for
another 180 days. My questions: Where is the person held during the
court process? Jail or hospital? What type of evidence is presented
along with a police report and mental health professional assessment
report? (evidence and not hearsay). Does the person have access to
his/her own attorney from the beginning to the end? “No Deadly
Weapon(s) is/are Taken into Possession of Law Enforcement without an
Order Issued by a Court with the Respondent Present with an Attorney.”
So, before police can take your gun(s) per HB 338, a court order is
needed.
My other questions about HB 338: Is the person that called the police
initially and reported the threat required to show up during the court
hearings to show he/she is a reputable source? When is a search warrant
issued to search the reported person’s home or vehicle for weapons? If
the person denies the threat can he/she be involuntary committed to a
psychiatric unit or taken to jail? Can the police and the mental health
professional question the person’s family members, friends, coworkers,
or others without the person’s written consent? Not showing up to your
job for even a few days can result in termination. Can the person call
his/her employer? If deemed no-risk during the beginning, middle or end
of the proceedings, can the person return to his/her employment without
penalty?
Will the Ohio Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services, NAMI
Ohio (National Alliance on Mental Illness of Ohio), or psychiatrists,
psychologists, counselors, and social workers in Ohio be consulted
about HB 338?
According to NAMI, “Most people with mental illness are not violent. In
fact, people with mental illness are more likely to be the victims of
violence. Research on the relationship between mental illness and
violence shows that there are certain factors that may increase risks
of violence among a small number of individuals with mental illness.”
These factors include: co-occurring abuse of alcohol or illegal drugs,
past history of violence, being young and male, untreated psychosis.
According to Ohio Governor Mike DeWine in reference to community
violence, mental health, and guns, “This series of solid, workable
reforms will help get guns out of the hands of people who should not
have them under the law while protecting the rights of law-abiding
citizens who are entitled to the right to bear arms and will help
prevent and treat those struggling with mental illness.”
While I applaud DeWine’s proposed legislative (www.governor.ohio.gov)
to address gun violence and increase mental health prevention,
identification, and treatment to better protect Ohioans, I am concerned
about House Bill 338 proposed by Greenspan.
Of course, we want and need to prevent mass shootings and community
violence in Ohio. Of course, we want and need new laws, reformed laws,
and enforcement of laws. Of course, we want and need access to mental
health services for individuals before a tragedy happens. However,
blaming mental illness for mass killings is bogus.
The Threat Assessment, Prevention and Safety Act (TAPS) has been
introduced in the House and Senate to help states and local communities
prevent mass attacks by setting up multidisciplinary threat assessment
units in each state. This bill will create “a task force of highly
experienced threat assessment experts who have been using the
methodology successfully for years. They will identify and recommend
best practices specifically formulated to work in local communities
with the goal of preventing deadly attacks. This will give states,
cities and counties the time-tested tools, used by federal agencies, to
employ when needed,” according to a 2019 article at www.cnn.com.
Is the proposed Ohio House Bill 338 helpful or harmful or both?
Melissa Martin, Ph.D., is an author, columnist, educator, and therapist. She lives in Ohio.
|
|
|
|
