Lifetime supervision of mentally ill convicts debated

     Associated Press
      CARSON CITY -- Sen. Mark James is continuing his assault on crime, urging the Assembly Judiciary Committee to back a bill mandating lifetime supervision of mentally ill convicts.
      James, R-Las Vegas, said Wednesday that SB7 complements a bill passed by the 1995 Legislature which mandates lifetime supervision of sex offenders after they leave prison. The new bill would expand lifetime supervision to felons who pleaded guilty but mentally ill to crimes involving violence or force.
      SB7 was recommended by an interim committee on parole and probation and has already passed the Senate.
      "This is a very small number of people, but it's extremely important that we keep a heightened awareness of what they do once they leave prison," James said.
      Ben Graham of the Nevada District Attorneys' Association confirmed that only a small number of convicts plead guilty but mentally ill. Graham told committee members only one convict in the state system currently meets the bill's criteria.
      But Graham cautioned that the proposal's impact is still in question after Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley, D-Las Vegas, asked if criminals would be less likely to plead guilty but mentally ill because of the threat of lifetime supervision.
      "This is a developing area, in many ways an experimental area," Graham said.
      The comments led Assemblywoman Genie Ohrenschall, D-Las Vegas, to question who the bill was meant for.
      "It seems to me that you would only plead guilty but mentally ill if you didn't want the death penalty or you're astute enough to know you need help," Ohrenschall said.
      Such questions made James bristle.
      "These are questions that should have been asked last session when we passed the sex offenders bill," James said. "Since we already have the mentally ill plea in the law, why shouldn't they have lifetime supervision?"
      The bill is the latest in a series that James has sponsored dealing with violent crime. SB100 would mandate parole treatment programs for sexual offenders and SB101 would allow the chemical castration of sex offenders.
      Those bills also face a tough battle. Opponents of SB101 say chemical castration has dubious results and does not control violent tendencies. And SB100 could prove unconstitutional because it mandates additional treatment after a convict's sentence has been served.