Kalebu case highlights importance of treatment

Your coverage of the horrible murder and assault that Isaiah M.K. Kalebu is accused of committing ["Video, DNA trail led police to suspect," page one, July 26] suggests he became competent to stand trial in response to mental-health treatment at Western State Hospital.

Like most people who have severe mental illnesses, Kalebu seems to respond to taking medications. We need to remember that severe mental illness is treatable, and the vast majority of people who have mental illness are not violent. Kalebu's repeated threatening and assaultive behaviors may or may not be related to his mental illness.

-- Perry Wien, Seattle

Don't blame mental illness for all violent crimes

As news stories about the horrific violence Teresa Butz and her partner endured continue ["South Park slaying suspect caught," page one, July 25], we are sure to learn more about the mental-health status of the suspect, Isaiah M.K. Kalebu. While we all want an explanation for why such a heinous crime occurred, it is unlikely to be found with this line of reporting.

The news story, "Study says mental illness alone is no trigger for violence," was published by The Seattle Times Feb. 9 [seattletimes.com, Health]. Many research studies, including the one reported in this news story, find that people with mental illness, without other big risk factors, are no more violent than most people.

It is bewildering then that crime stories routinely report any past or a current diagnoses of mental illness -- implying there is a cause-and-effect relationship between the diagnosis and the crime.

If journalists are looking for possible explanations for violent crimes, they should be spending their time tracking down other attainable facts -- such as whether suspects are abusing drugs or alcohol, are recently divorced or separated, have a parental criminal history or were unemployed in the last year, as researchers have found these to be better predictors of violence than a diagnosis of mental illness.

It is time to examine why mental illness has become a scapegoat to explain violent crimes. Is it further evidence of the stigma and discrimination people with mental illness endure or a lack of education that perpetuates the myth?

-- Jennifer Stuber, Seattle

Judges may not have clairvoyance, but do need common sense

Editor, The Times:

The revelation that our justice system had an opportunity to keep the public safe from at least one potential danger and decided not to is both disturbing and incredibly sad ["South Park slaying suspect caught," NWSaturday, July 25]. The King County Prosecutor's Office apparently did everything that it could to put Isaiah M.K. Kalebu behind bars at least for a short period of time. Prosecutors felt, and rightly so, that Kalebu was a danger to public safety.

King County Superior Court Judge Brian Gain didn't see it that way, and Teresa Butz lost her life and her partner was seriously hurt as a result.

No one is suggesting that judges should have clairvoyance, but a little common sense wouldn't hurt. It seems to me that there were all sorts of reasons to at least hold Kalebu for mental evaluation.

While no judge can foresee murder, the danger to public safety was apparently quite evident. I wonder what was evident to Gain?

-- Phil Bate, Lynnwood

Make it a policy to always print judges' names

Thank you for naming the judge who declined to place the alleged slayer in custody on a different offense six days before the suspect killed a woman and injured another.

Print and TV reporters frequently use phrases like "the court ordered" or "the judge said" in reporting legal actions but omit the names of the judges. This omission does voters a disservice. Without the names we have little information on which to base votes for or against judges, except the sometimes questionable ratings of the Municipal League.

I strongly recommend that The Times establish a policy of naming judges and court commissioners in articles about their actions, except in rare extraordinary situations.

By doing so you will provide a valuable service to your subscribers.

-- Harry Petersen, Bellevue

Remember South Park slaying when electing judges

It is no surprise that Isaiah M.K. Kalebu, the suspect in the South Park murder, has a history of mental illness and run-ins with the police. It's also sadly no surprise that the courts and the mental-health system are still failing to protect us.

Kalebu's aunt recently filed for a protection order; he had threatened and assaulted her. Kalebu may have responded by burning his aunt's house, killing her and a tenant --he's a suspect in that murder, not yet charged.

Kalebu is also awaiting trial for threatening to kill his mother. A Western State Hospital psychologist found he "did not have the capacity to rationally understand" that case against him. Then Kalebu failed to attend a court hearing. Later, when he finally did appear in court, the prosecutor naturally asked Superior Court Judge Brian Gain to place Kalebu in jail custody because of the aforementioned facts. Gain outrageously and tragically refused to order that he be held. Kalebu was allowed to remain free.

This decision was unbelievable and indefensible. Six days later, he brutally stabbed two women, murdering one, Teresa Butz.

Kalebu clearly should have been placed in jail. This murder was preventable. And who will be the next victim? When are the citizens of this state going to get the protection we deserve?

At the least we can do one thing: Remember this the next time Gain runs for Superior Court judge. By placing the "rights" of an obviously dangerous, mentally ill criminal above the rights of us citizens, he failed to protect us all.

-- Doug Hjellen, Mill Creek

Three missed opportunities to prevent South Park slaying

I read with dismay ["Video, DNA trail led police to suspect," page one, July 26] about murder suspect Isaiah M. K. Kalebu.

In the space of less than a week, King County Superior Court Judge Brian Gain had three opportunities to keep this murder suspect and arsonist off the streets. In all three he denied motions that would have kept Kalebu behind bars.

Four days after the last opportunity on July 10, Kalebu was linked to the attacks of two women in South Park. One of them was killed.

What could this judge have been thinking? Yes, a suspect is innocent until proven guilty. But in this case the suspect had a long history of violence and even his mother was afraid of him and didn't want to be around him.

I hope Judge Gain thinks long and hard about this case and the opportunities he squandered to prevent a horrific crime.

-- Dick Malloy, Seattle

Costly fence takes dollars from real suicide prevention

The Seattle Times reports the city has approved spending $8 million on a suicide-prevention fence on the Aurora Bridge ["Fences at span to thwart suicides," Around the Northwest, June 5]. But will a fence really do much to prevent suicides?

As a mother of a daughter with mental illness I know how difficult it is for depressed and mentally ill people to get help. After two recent visits to hospital emergency rooms and a call to a crisis hotline where the counselor informed me there was nothing that could be done since there was not an available psychiatric hospital bed in the city of Seattle or Bellevue, I was forced to take my psychotic and suicidal daughter home.

After three horrific weeks of watching my daughter suffer without any hope of getting the help she needed, she finally was admitted into the hospital. I can't help but wonder what happens to the many others that desperately seek help and are sent away. How many of them go home to commit suicide?

A fence will prevent someone from jumping off a particular bridge, but what will stop them from finding another bridge or finding another way to commit suicide? Eight million dollars could do a world of good to help mental-health-care programs that are now underfunded and stretched to the limits of collapsing.

The fence is just putting a bandage on a gushing wound and shows what a lack of understanding many people and our government officials have on mental-health issues. The question is: Do we really want to do something about stopping suicide or is the city of Seattle more comfortable brushing the unpleasantness of suicide and mental illness from our sight?

-- Nancy Cole, Seattle

Mental-health system needs adequate resources

I read with interest the story on James Williams' guilty plea ["New Year's Eve knife attacker pleads guilty to murder," seattletimes.com, Local News, May 22]. Missing in this and many other stories involving persons with mental illness is any discussion of why these terrible and unfortunate events happen and how such events might be prevented in the future.

The community mental-health system has been under-resourced and overpopulated for many years. One effect of this system under siege is limited ability to really look after people in need. Enormous caseloads of challenging people means some do not get the help they need.

Another effect may be that there are limited or no treatment choices for consumers within that system. Some choose no services when faced with few or no choices. A one-size-fits-all approach is inappropriate in any area of health care.

It may never be known why Williams acted as he did in such a senseless and violent manner. What is known is that our public system of care can do better -- much better. It is long past time for adequate resources to be made available for it to do so.

-- Jonathan R. Beard, licensed clinical social worker, Seattle

Housing a prime ingredient for recovery

Thanks to Jerry Large for his fine column on the ongoing success of the Downtown Emergency Service Center's (DESC) 1811 Eastlake project, which provides housing to hard-core alcoholics ["No place like home for alcoholics," NW Thursday, April 2].

The program has proved successful in many ways. I have been a social worker in Seattle's downtown for more than 30 years. As a co-founder of the Pike Market Medical Clinic and DESC, I have repeatedly observed the critical role that affordable and accessible housing plays in the lives of all indigent individuals.

For many who struggle with alcoholism, other addictions, mental illness or a combination of these afflictions, housing is a prime ingredient in any plan for recovery and ongoing treatment. While numerous residents at the Eastlake project continue to drink, it is not surprising that ER visits and incarcerations are significantly reduced. And even the overall amount of alcohol consumed by residents seems to be less.

These factors surely bolster the argument many low-income housing advocates and human-service providers have made for decades: Housing is indispensable to everyone's health and well-being.

For those grappling with addictions, a home base makes any self-motivated effort to reform and embrace recovery a much more likely prospect. Life on perilous streets only enhances the misery and confusion that overwhelm so many whose lives are already devastated by alcohol, drugs or profound psychological problems.

The Eastlake project deserves applause and should serve as a model for future endeavors to assist those caught in the deleterious throes of addiction.

-- Joe Martin, Seattle

Lost your home? Start drinking

Seattle is saving money by putting homeless alcoholics into apartments. Maybe we should take this good news a step further.

A lot of people are losing their homes right now. What they should do when they lose a home is move onto the street and start drinking. This will give liquor stores more business and increase tax revenues, and the state will then be able to build more apartments to put more drunks in.

This is a perfect circle when you think about it. The cash-strapped government already plans to open more liquor stores and extend their hours. This will allow the homeless to drink on a more convenient schedule and feel good about contributing to the tax base. It can be a wrenching experience to lose your home, but drinking in the street until you qualify for a new residence can be a positive way to deal with adversity.

Critics of this plan will claim that it promotes alcoholism. But the city has already proven that people will cut down on their drinking once they've obtained an apartment. Besides, it seems like a small price to pay for solving the foreclosure crisis.

-- David Billings, Alger

An issue of safety, not mental illness

An Associated Press story that appeared in a number of Washington state newspapers in recent days suggested that many violent young people with mental illnesses are being deliberately placed in nursing homes around the United States, posing a threat to other long-term-care residents ["Nursing home patients endangered by younger, mentally ill residents," Nation and World, March 22].

The Washington State Department of Social and Health Services does not offer services to violent people in inappropriate settings, nor do we offer skilled-care services for people who do not need that level of care. The article cited several cases of nursing-home violence around the country, but none of those cases is are from this state.

The sporadic anecdotes do not make up a trend -- or reflect the situation in our state. The long-term-care policy, service options and providers in this state offer better options for our residents.

People with mental illness are not normally dangerous to others. Statistically, people with mental illness are overwhelmingly more likely to be victims of violence than they are to be a threat to others.

A key premise of the article seemed to be that mental illness is something to be feared and ostracized, not treated as an illness. This kind of stigma is a throwback to superstition and ignorance -- attitudes that modern health care has moved beyond.

Violence in facilities, violence that threatens the most vulnerable populations and violence in general -- these are issues of safety, not to be confused with issues of health care or mental illness. Responsible reporting and editing should point out that difference, not blur it.

-- Doug Porter and Kathy Leitch, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Olympia

Counteracting unfair stigma about violent behavior

Thank you for publishing the latest findings in the Archives of General Psychiatry demonstrating that people with a serious mental illness, without other big risk factors, are no more violent than people without a mental illness ["Study says mental illness alone is no trigger for violence," Health and Family, Feb. 2].

This study is not the first to reach this conclusion, but the findings need repeating. Public opinion surveys demonstrate convincingly that the wildly inaccurate perception that people with mental illness are likely to commit violent acts does in fact exist.

This attitude underlies widespread stigma and discrimination experienced by people with a mental illness, impacting their ability to gain access to basic needs such as housing and employment. The near-monolithic reporting of news events involving people with mental illnesses, such as the Virginia Tech shootings or the Skagit Valley massacre in Washington state, helps to perpetuate inaccurate public perceptions and drives public policy.

As often as possible, it is important to counteract such portrayals by providing a broader context of violent behavior.

If we could only read more news stories that reflect accurately the promise of mental-health treatments and marked improvement for the vast majority of people living with mental illnesses, then we could really make progress in counteracting unfair stigma and discrimination experienced by people with mental illnesses.

-- Jennifer Stuber, Ph.D., Seattle