As a result of his stay, John Doe was charged with misdemeanor sexual assault after one of the psychiatric nurses called the police on him. To be clear, a psychiatric nurse, in a psychiatric hospitalization setting, called the police on his own patient, who was exhibiting signs of mental health distress. Sadly, this is all too common.

To date, John’s case is still pending in Hartford, a year and a half later. John was subjected to what’s called a 54-56d examination and forced to attend meetings with the Office of Forensic Evaluator to determine whether or not he was “competent” to stand trial which, in Connecticut’s particular legal parlance, means whether he could recognize the different court personnel, knew the facts that were being alleged, could understand the court system itself, and could help an attorney prepare a defense.

His appointed attorney, a contractor with the office of the public defender, applied him for Connecticut’s Supervised Diversionary Program, which is designed for individuals that have mental health issues that cause the underlying behaviors complained of in a criminal case.

Since the initial arrest, John has been unable to work. He has been ordered to take medications that he doesn’t want to take. What John experienced – and continues to experience – is merely one example of the numerous cases where individuals in psychiatric hospitalization settings are charged with crimes, through the collusion of psych nurses and police. In 2022, this number was estimated to be 1,948 (according to the Connecticut Hospital Association) out of the roughly 5,532 “violent incidents” that occurred across the state that year according to the Connecticut Senate Democrats, meaning that over one third of “violent incidents” reported in Connecticut that year were psychiatric patients interacting with psych nurses or other hospital staff.

In that same year, Black people in Connecticut were arrested at a rate of 5.3 times higher than white people; they were the victims of crimes at a rate of 3.2 times higher than white people. Those arrested were disproportionately poor, and those who were convicted and incarcerated where even more so. Despite making up only 12% of the state population, Black people constitute roughly 45% of its prisoners. There are presently 10,698 incarcerated people in the state, which leaves us with almost 5,000 Black prisoners of a Black population of roughly 500,000 – 1% of the entire Black population of Connecticut is currently in prison. One out of every five Black boys today is expected to go to prison at some point in their life.

Nurses and Police: Bedfellows in Class Warfare

Nurses are petty bourgeois professionals. Despite the fact that they work to support themselves, they are required to obtain an advanced nursing degree and to pass through a guild-style board system in order to be permitted to practice. Registered nurses in Connecticut make a median salary of $102,740 per year according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. We can assume that most are owners of real property, given this income rate. All of this is reflected in their petty bourgeois class consciousness and the way they behave around and with police.

Indeed, nurses and police often work together as a team, particularly in acute psychiatric facilities. Studies have shown that nurses and police “develop a trusting, respectful alliance” in the psychiatric setting, according to “Nurse-Police Coalition,” a scholarly article in the Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services (Vol. 52, No. 9). A Canadian study in the Archives of Psychiatric Nursing (Vol. 35, Is. 5) found that “all nurses saw police officers as fellow colleagues.”

Nurses are integrated into the system of property and property-maintenance through their petty bourgeois class background, which is itself partially the result of the western settler-colonial system. However, this petty bourgeois consciousness is not the necessary outcome of their class position and they could, if there were a decolonial mass organization capable of acting as an anchor, be persuaded to break with the police.

As it stands, however, nurses are in league with the police; they are an adjunct arm of the system that protects property and the “property rights” of the owning classes. When it comes to mental health arrests, many nurses do not take seriously their duty to the patients, but rather, like police, prioritize their own convenience and passing mental and physical welfare over that of their patients. In instances of mental health prosecutions, nurses cease acting as caregivers, and take on the role of Junior G-man in a prosecution.

Targeting the Vulnerable

Those subject to arrests because of mental health crises are among the people least capable of fighting back. Someone who is arrested in a mental health crisis is already likely to have limited access to resources; if they had more resources, they would rarely be placed in a position to be arrested in the first place. Private treatment facilities discourage the intervention of police; money smooths over many problems.

Of those who are arrested, those who continue to be prosecuted are once again those without resources. After an arrest, if someone with mental health problems can show a stable housing situation, good income, and what lawyers often call evidence that they are “productive members of society,” the prosecutions are frequently dropped or blunted. Those who continue to have housing insecurity, job insecurity, and are not “productive members of society” – which can be read as either workers capable of being exploited or exploiters capable of doing exploitation – their prosecutions continue unabated.

Managing mental health crises would require putting resources toward a social system of care. There is no comprehensive system to assist those who are suffering from either acute or long-term mental health crises. Like most everything else in the US, the management of mental health is left to private corporations as a source of profit. This means that anyone who does not have the free resources to be extracted by a treatment corporation is left to fend for themselves and that when crises do occur, they’re shuttled into overloaded treatment centers where they are treated as pieces of meat in a packaging system or simply arrested. If and when they object to such treatment in these overcrowded hospitals and facilities, or if and when their mental health crisis manifests in a fashion that is less palatable, particularly when they’re Black, the police become the mental health system of last reserve. This, despite the fact that there really is no system of first reserve.

Dismantle the Criminal Mental Health System

This is a front in the class war, and one that is particularly acute in and among communities of the nationally oppressed. The cry must be taken up against the collusion between psychiatric treatment facilities and the police; to continue to subject those among us who are in crisis and need help to a punitive system designed to extract money (through court fees and criminal fines), break up labor solidarity (through imprisonment), and protect property (through prosecuting low-level property crimes directly, or by physically removing and warehousing those members of society whose presence is uncomfortable for the propertied elements, thus improving the property values) is itself a crime.

If you’re a Connecticut resident who wants to be heard in the fight against this two-sided system where nurses feed mental health patients in to the meat grinder of the criminal legal machine, please reach out to Hartford Community Legal Aid, care of the Sonthonax Institute, at sonthonaxinstitute@gmail.com or call us at 401-215-0375.

We are fighting for a better tomorrow.

Assume camaraderie, not attack. Sometimes, more impassioned parts of conversation can lead us to feel we are being put on the defensive, but, in principled discussion, this should not be the case. It is not you versus your conversation partners; it is critical to remember that you are trying to deepen your communal understanding. You can’t “win” a discussion. 

Assume your comrades in conversation carry trauma and difficult experiences with them. Statistically, this is a safe bet to make. An oft-cited 2015 study carried out by the World Mental Health Survey Consortium across 24 countries found an over 70% rate of traumatic event occurrence in adults, with nearly 30.5% of participants exposed to more than four traumatic events.¹ This does not account for protracted traumatic situations or the violence of living as an oppressed person under capitalism. Life is difficult for all of us in different ways and to different degrees; it is best to be mindful and sensitive rather than overly frank or matter-of-fact when discussing difficult topics. 

Check-in before going too deep on difficult matters. It is a good idea to ask “is it okay if I talk about…” rather than risk triggering or activating group participants, especially if you intend on discussing something activating in graphic or frank detail. It also needs to be okay with you if the answer from your discussion partners is “no.” Consent is critical in all interpersonal relationships  and we need to work together to create environments where everyone feels comfortable contributing. 

It is generally better to summarize or paraphrase harmful and violent viewpoints rather than to quote or “parrot” them directly, even if your intention is to disprove them. Quoting right-wing thinkers still exposes your comrades to violent and possibly triggering rhetoric, even if you are making fun of it or tearing it down. This is unnecessary and can be avoided (or at least lessened) by generally summarizing conversations or ideas. 

Be open-minded to criticism. If a group member expresses discomfort, calls you in on a point, or critiques an idea or point you’ve made, take it as a call to reflect and grow. Though it can be difficult to internalize, criticism is not a personal attack, nor is it an invitation to become aggressive or defensive.

Take breaks if needed. Your mental health and well-being are more important than continuous participation in the conversation. You are not weak or a bad comrade for needing to take a break from an uncomfortable or intense discussion.

Share the mic. If any one person speaks for too long, power imbalances can start to take shape within a group. If you have not spoken much during a discussion and want to share, do so if you are able. If you have been doing a lot of speaking, give others a turn in order to facilitate healthy group dynamics. No one person needs to speak on every piece of a discussion. 

Don’t play “devil’s advocate” to prove a point. If your argument is strong enough to share, it is strong enough to stand on its own without introducing a potentially harmful invisible critic. 

For Facilitators:

Address the possible sensitive nature of the discussion upfront when tackling difficult topics. This helps keep the discussion space courteous and discourages overly callous or matter-of-fact conversation.

Return to the original intention of the question if the conversation gets too heated or too uncomfortable. This will aid participants in remembering their intentions for the discussion space and anchor them in the space’s purpose if they begin to drift from discomfort or anxiety.

Consider establishing a word or phrase that halts discussion on the present topic entirely. If the conversation is going to be especially difficult, consider establishing a “safe word” like “halt” that will trigger a break in the conversation, no questions asked. Being able to claim this power in potentially harmful or triggering situations can make a huge difference in comfort and safety to participants living with trauma. 

Encourage and de-stigmatize taking breaks. Remind participants of the critical importance of their mental health and reassure them that taking breaks does not mean they are less valued or less powerful in the discussion space. Creating intentional break time framed by a facilitator acknowledging that they need a break can also help break down this potential stigma. It also does not necessarily indicate conflict or wrongdoing on the part of other discussion participants; sometimes the group just needs a break!

Diffuse moments of high tension by acknowledging them. Saying something along the lines of “this conversation feels tense, let’s step back for a moment” can improve the health of the discussion space by acknowledging what some participants may not feel brave enough to say aloud themselves. 

Create an environment where it is safe to speak up if a participant feels uncomfortable. Regularly asking something like “how are we all feeling about this conversation” or otherwise soliciting feedback and/or commentary can go a long way towards this point. Let participants know that you can provide them with resources or further support where applicable. 

Shut down overly inflammatory remarks. This may seem obvious, but sometimes a speaker can get carried away and it can be difficult to interrupt them. Doing so, especially if you notice other participants reacting adversely, is one of the most critical responsibilities of a facilitator. 

Try not to let any one participant monopolize the conversation. This can also be difficult, but phrases such as “I’d love to hear from folks who haven’t answered questions as much yet” can go a long way in maintaining the health of the discussion space.  

Be open-minded to criticism. Just as you would as a participant, take any critiques of your facilitation style or skills as a reminder that we all have room to grow as facilitators, comrades, and human beings. Try to listen carefully to criticism and not be too hard on yourself when it arises. 

¹ Benjet, C., et al. “The Epidemiology of Traumatic Event Exposure Worldwide: Results from the World Mental Health Survey Consortium.” Psychological Medicine, vol. 46, no. 2, 2016, pp. 327–343., doi:10.1017/S0033291715001981.