Offenders shouldn't be in state hospital, Portland attorney says

By CHARLES E. BEGGS
Associated Press writer

SALEM — Accused criminals shouldn't be able to raise insanity defenses when their disorders are only drug or alcohol dependence, the Oregon Supreme Court was told Wednesday.

Under state law, criminals found guilty "except for insanity" are sent to the State Hospital instead of jail or prison.

A key issue in two appeals to the court is whether substance addiction alone is a mental illness that justifies sending offenders to the hospital or keeping them there when another disorder, such as paranoia, has been treated.

A ruling that addiction alone doesn't justify hospital confinement could free a handful of the 480 patients who are in the Salem hospital for crimes, said Harris Matarazzo, a Portland lawyer handling one of the cases before the state's top court.

Most criminally insane offenders with alcohol or drug problems also suffer from mental illness, he said in an interview.

Matarazzo said offenders with only substance-abuse problems shouldn't be in the state hospital because it has no treatment programs for them. He also said such addicts shouldn't be able to make an insanity defense in the first place.

Some patients who have been successfully treated for mental illnesses have brought lawsuits claiming they should be released because their only remaining disorder is substance abuse.

In one of the two appeals considered by the Supreme Court, Matarazzo represents Roderick Tharp, who was found guilty of robbery except for insanity in 1999 and diagnosed as suffering from paranoia and schizophrenia.

In 2001, a psychiatrist said Tharp no longer had symptoms of those disorders but still suffered from alcohol and drug addiction.

His request to be released from the hospital was rejected by the state Psychiatric Security Review Board, which monitors the criminally insane.

The second appeal involves a Court of Appeals ruling in March that said the review board lacks jurisdiction in cases where offenders only suffer from substance addiction. The board appealed the ruling.

The appeals court said the Legislature never intended drug-and-alcohol dependency to be part of the definition of mental illness.

"The Legislature said these are personality disorders," but not illnesses, Matarazzo told the Supreme Court.

In disagreeing with Matarazzo, the review board refers to the psychiatric profession's standard diagnostic manual. It considers substance abuse a mental illness.

State lawyers cite a 1997 state Supreme Court ruling which said the psychiatric review board could rely on the manual's definitions.