My client is Beezow Doo-doo Zopittybop-bop-bop; you might have heard of him. If so, it's not because his case involves severe allegations or sympathetic victims. No, it's because on January 6, 2012, the Internet exploded in delight when a guy whose name would make Bill Cosby swoon was picked up on drug charges; imitation Beezows flourished on Facebook, #FreeBeezow trended on Twitter and Reddit rejoiced.
After all, if there's anything the Internet loves more than cats, it's when somebody lives down to expectations ("Kim Kardashian got divorced? Say it ain't so!"). Offered an amusing way to tie drugs to erratic behavior, the blogosphere had a field day. The narrative was convenient, familiar, comforting. It was also dead wrong.
Although none of you had seen Beezow's name before then, I had. It belonged to a man who had been found incompetent to stand trial, institutionalized and forcibly medicated before finally pleading no contest to two misdemeanors; I'd been assigned his case on appeal. His name had been Jeffrey Drew Wilschke, but you know him as Beezow. He'd recently missed an appointment we'd set up. When I saw his mugshot on Reddit two days later, I learned why.
Beezow has had a rough journey to Internet notoriety. And although he is certainly not typical, the story of how his case moved through the system is. For defendants with mental-health issues, the difficulties start on day one.
It's extremely important, as a defendant, to develop a relationship with your attorney. Conversely, good attorneys take the time to understand what individual clients need. When cases call for compromise, the right solution for one client may be entirely inappropriate for another. So I make a point of getting to know all my clients, even the challenging ones.
But what if a client can't or won't make that kind of connection? Not only is it impossible to determine their ideal result, it may be impossible to proceed at all. This can lead to a "competency hearing," where a judge will rule whether a defendant can (1) understand the proceedings and (2) aid in his own defense. If not, they may not stand trial, plead guilty or waive their right to an attorney.
Courts can also determine, however, that an incompetent defendant could be "medicated into competency" and order involuntary treatment, often over a defendant's strident objections. This is what happened to Beezow. It is an explosively controversial issue, and there isn't enough room here to do it justice. Generally speaking, though, supporters of involuntary treatment believe that because mental disorders distort the lens through which the world appears, those they afflict may not be able to clearly evaluate their own interests.
The underlying question is simple: at what point does a citizen lose the right to not be forcibly medicated? For those inmates who present a physical threat, such violations of liberty may be necessary. But what about those who threaten only the system's smooth operation, and perhaps their own freedom? That's a trickier discussion.
As for those in the system suffering from less conspicuous mental disorders, their situation barely registers. Even when defendants have documented histories of mental illness, courts commonly mandate treatment of the disorder's symptoms -- alcoholism, drug abuse, violence -- without mentioning therapy or medication. To ignore the root cause of a defendant's behavior and then be somehow shocked when he violates his probation is absurd. It's like asking a man with a broken leg to run a race, but only providing him morphine to dull the pain. Once any pressure is applied, morphine or no, his fracture simply cannot bear the weight.
Then again, this viewpoint will prevail as long as society continues to treat mental disorders as less real than physical ones -- nobody would tell an asthmatic to try breathing harder, or expect a diabetic to manufacture insulin with a smile. And yet those with depression, or mania, or ADHD? They just need to cheer up, or settle down or focus.
That's the insidious thing about mental illness, and why the convenient ironies of Beezow's situation garnered such a reaction: as much as we'd like to believe in empathy, most people simply don't care much about plights outside their individual experience.
Let's be honest, though: if we as individuals aren't particularly empathetic, it isn't a huge deal. We make some ignorant comments, hurt a few people's feelings, miss an opportunity or three to make the world a better place. Little things like that. But an indifferent criminal-justice system is a much larger problem. That's why the actors who constitute that system, including myself, must attend to each defendant's individuality, even when it takes an unfamiliar form. Perhaps especially then.
So, what's in a name? When that name is Beezow Doo-doo Zopittybop-bop-bop, quite a bit. There's amusement, for sure, along with confusion. Maybe a hint of vertigo, if you spend too long reading it. But there's also a burgeoning awareness that something else might be going on. Not to say we shouldn't laugh at the infinite range of absurdity life presents -- we're only human, after all. But at the same time, as we smirk and judge and dismiss, we must strive to remember one simple fact: the most important part of any name is that there's a human being behind it.
Oh, and by the way: Beezow says hello.
Beezow Doo-Doo Zopittybop-Bop-Bop arrested - US news - Weird ...
Beezow Doo-Doo Zopittybop-Bop-Bop arrested – USATODAY.com
What's in a name? Maybe Beezow Doo-Doo Zopittybop-bop-bop ...
Beezow Doo-Doo Zopittybop-Bop-Bop arrested - Crimesider - CBS ...
Beezow Doo-Doo Zopittybop-Bop-Bop busted - New York Daily News
Anchors Saying 'Beezow Doo-Doo Zopittybop-Bop-Bop': Jimmy ...
http://www.elkeinland.com/img/clevon.png
It may be hard to convince people that there is an actual problem with Beezow, besides his harmless infractions.
i dont know what should be done about it. of course better civic control over longterm care environments should be implemented; otoh, the real issue starts at the very core of what our society values. until we put compassion at the center of our personal & political existences, nothing is going to much change.
http://mentalillnesspolicy.org
For example, while it's easy to say that "individuals who lack competency" need help, it can sometimes be extremely challenging to identify whether a particular individual is competent or not. It's a legal question, and a complicated one; I know of at least one defendant who was found competent in one case, then incompetent in another several months later. Nothing had changed.
There are other questions too. What about if somebody is involuntarily medicated to competency, only to plead guilty and go on community supervision? There's a very high chance they'll stop treatment at that point. Medicating someone to competency while aware they'll revert to a potentially dangerous mental state upon re-entering society benefits nobody--not the defendant, not society, and not the courts. But it's unclear what the constitutional alternatives are.
Finally, the difference between competency to stand trial and competency to refuse medications raises some questions, including whether somebody could be incompetent to stand trial but competent to refuse treatment. What happens then?
I hope to discuss some of this in future posts. Again, thank you for all the work you do; advocates like you have helped evolve society's attitude toward mental illness. If there's anything I can do to help, please let me know.
Please update your article to address the issue of attorney client confidentiality. The last thing we need is defendants thinking Court appointed attorneys will put their mental health history on the internet. I'm sure you have a waiver of some sort from your client to do this, although suggesting he is not competent leaves that waiver in a troubling status. While your client definitely deserves sympathy, and your article assists with that, there are other important issues at stake. Thank you.
This is all a matter of public record. The attorney is not breeching any confidence,
This is quite simply an appeal by a compassionate attorney who understands and wishes to enlighten others to situations like Beezow's and he has a point. If mentally ill people continue to be incarcerated rather than treated what does that say for the justice and mental health system currently subscribed to in this country. That people find this man's situation humorous or unimportant when it is so much more than that is sad. Denied access to diagnosis, treatment, and medication patients can, and will, become incapacitated to the point that they cannot represent or avail themselves of the assistance they so very much need. Just yesterday there was an article about a person who was incarcerated for posessing too many prescription pills, yet once examined by prison doctors was prescrobed the very same amount of medication that he was incarcerated for. Now imagine being incarcerated because you can't get those medications. Doesn't seem so fair now,does it?
First of all, he gave broad, written, informed consent. Considering the situation, though, there is some question (as you hint) about whether he would be considered able to give the "informed consent" that Rule 1.6 requires. I believe his consent was valid, but chose to err on the side of confidentiality, and removed everything "relating to the representation of a client." For precisely the reasons you cite, I even omitted information that the public could easily obtain, such as the content of prior proceedings, and information about his mental-health history, diagnosis, and status.
One final point: I don't mean to suggest that he isn't competent. Obviously, juxtaposing his name with an article like this may give that impression, but his connection is due to the way he was treated in the system, not whether that treatment was appropriate.
Again, I'm glad you raised this. To publicize an issue at the cost of an individual client would cut against much of what I believe, and I hope this piece did not give that impression. In the future, I'll consider including some brief disclaimer to address these issues.
I'll get ya twice next time around!