Why The U.S. Prison System Makes Mental Illness Worse (And How We Might Fix It)

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

From whyy in Philadelphia. This is fresh air I'm Dave. Davies Infra Terry Gross today, the maddening impact of American incarceration psychiatrists Christine. MANTRAS patients with serious illnesses who end up in jail find their conditions inevitably deteriorate and psychiatric stable people who go to prison find their mental health undermined in a new book Montross takes readers to jails and prisons for a first hand. Look at the harm. The experience does, and she explores an alternative model for confinement and rehabilitation in effect in Norway. Her book is waiting for an Echo. Also TV critic David Ben Cooley reviews yet. Another new video streaming service peacock by NBC Universal. That's coming up on today's fresh air. Support for this podcast comes from the Neubauer family foundation, supporting whyy's fresh air and its commitment to sharing ideas and encouraging meaningful conversation. My guest psychiatrists Christine Mantra has spent years tweeting people with serious mental illnesses, and she's noticed that many of her former patients end up in jails or prisons were there conditions inevitably deteriorate in her new book Montross notes that in America today there are ten times as many people with serious mental illness behind bars as there are in our state psychiatric hospitals. Incarceration she says usually makes mentally ill. People worse and renders stable, psychiatric, unwell making the prison system literally maddening. Dr Montross his book explores the reasons, people with mental illnesses get arrested and incarcerated. Should readers many prisons for a first hand? Look at the harm. The experience does, and she explores an alternative model for confinement and rehabilitation in effect in Norway. Christine mantras Twenty fifteen guggenheim fellow, general nonfiction, an associate professor of psychiatry and human behavior at the Brown. University Medical School and the author of two previous books. We spoke about her latest. It's called waiting for an echo the madness of American incarceration. Christine mantras welcome to fresh, air. Thanks, so much Dave I'm delighted to be here. You're a practicing psychiatrists. you create a lot of patients with serious mental? What's taking you to so many jails and prisons? So I work in an inpatient psychiatric hospital and I work on floors that are called the intensive care unit, which is like the psychiatric version of ICU. I've been struck over the years that my patients routinely come into contact with police, and sometimes those outcomes are helpful ones. Police bring them to the hospital, and sometimes those outcomes are really punitive ones. Police take them to jails and prisons. As I talk to my patients. They would often explained that the circumstances that led them to the police encounter were essentially the same reasons that brought them into the hospital so under-treated symptoms. You know The starbucks causing a disturbance in the community that really were more about their symptoms of mental illness, than about any kind of criminal behavior or intent, so I started to think about how my patients must do. In these moments of the police encounter, and how it must be for them to be in jails and prisons, so I decided I wanted to look for myself and see what those environments were like for the mentally ill people who are held in them, so you visited a lot of correctional facilities doing research you. You also do work in court cases right evaluating psychiatric patients right so so I visited a lot of prisons. I also began working in jails, doing competency to stand trial evaluation, so when the court asks whether someone is able to understand their court case the proceedings the charges that they're facing whether they're mentally well enough to work with their attorney. They often ask for the expert opinion of psychiatrists, so I began performing these evaluations as well to learn more about what goes on when mentally people are charged with crimes. Right and I wonder if you could just contrast the experience of. Talking to a patient in a treatment in a in a clinical setting. And going to a prison, where you're asking questions for a different purpose in a very different atmosphere, so they're there to really remarkable differences in those circumstances, one is the environment. One is what I'm being asked to do. And I had to learn a great deal about the difference in those two things, so so the the first one in terms of what I'm being asked to do when I am. AM seeing patients in the psychiatric hospital. I'm really charged with their care. And it is my job to diagnose them to treat them to comfort them in the midst of their suffering to work with them and their families, and the nurses that are providing their care and really try to help them manage and cope with the symptoms of their illness and help. Improve that as much as I can. When I'm working doing valuations in the jails and prisons, I'm really asked to be an objective analyst and to ask questions that try to determine almost a snap shot of the person's mental state in that moment, but it's not a clinical treatment, encounter and so that was a that was an important thing for me to learn that my job in that role was not to treat but was really to provide an objective analysis of what I was seeing in the moment. The other piece of the question is really a critical one as well, and we're talking about the difference between a punitive environment and a therapeutic one and one of the things that was so striking to me. When I started working in the jails and prisons were that the people that I was seeing in these two places were indistinguishable, so so the the patients that I was seeing in my hospital were indistinguishable, many times from the men and women that I was evaluating in jail, but the environments were so markedly different, one charged with again trying to help and heal, and the other really designed to control and punish. I. Want to talk about what you've seen in in correctional institutions, but but I wanNA talk a little more about this phenomenon of people with mental illnesses, being arrested and incarcerated. Why is it that so often people with mental illnesses who are clearly acting out their symptoms, not intending to necessarily steel or disturbed the peace or Or make people feel uncomfortable. End Up in jail. You write it. There's a phenomenon known as a compassionate arrest which seems like an ironic term. Right, so to really understand the origins of why there are so many mentally ill people in jails and prisons in America you really have to go back to the sixties and seventies and eighties, when large numbers of people were moved out of our state run hospitals, psychiatric hospitals with the goal of shifting mental health care from institutions to the communities, and as you said in the opening, and that was an enormous shift that closed down. State, psychiatric hospitals largely due to the nineteen sixty three community, mental health centers act that passed to enact this change of shifting people from hospitalized. Institutionalized lives into the community to receive their care. The great problem with that was that funding community care was never adequately allocated so people who required very significant levels of care and support in hospitals and institutions, or suddenly without treatment without housing without funds and the people who had been in these state hospitals were suddenly turning up on the streets of our cities, begging sleeping outside causing disturbances, and that shifted people from the realm of the healthcare system into the realm of the legal system, so that's when we start talking about the criminalization of mental illness, when when a healthcare problem really becomes a legal problem, and that gives rise to the situation that you describe where. Where we talk about Compassionate Arrest, which is the idea that police officers sometimes attempt to provide mentally ill people with treatment have said things to me like we know. If we take them to jail, they will at least get three hots and a cot. They will at least get their psychiatric medications, and so taking them to jail feels like an act of compassion, so this idea of compassionate arrest struck me so deeply because we would never arrest someone to make sure that they received treatment for their cancer We only do that in the situation of the mentally ill, and that to me seems like a travesty. Sometimes police ended up arresting people out of frustration because they've tried to get some help, right? Right so I heard the Portland police commander speak about a situation like this that and her officers found extremely frustrating, and she offered it as an example that was common for them where she described the situation on the Portland Waterfront. Where mentally ill man? was swinging above his head, a gallon jug filled with some kind of liquid, making it really heavy news. Swing it on the chain. That was really scaring people down in this common area. The police were called, and she described that after a long period of time, the police were able to de escalate the situation to get the man into their car without any kind of force or violence, and she said took a couple of hours for them to do this. They took him. Him To the hospital emergency room, and she described there that there were no psychiatric beds available, and the man was discharged back into the community immediately, and her phrasing was. He was out before we had finished our paperwork so very quickly, he went back to the waterfront, started doing the exact same thing and the police arrived in this time. They knew that they would have the same outcome if they took him to. The emergency room so instead. They took him to jail. So give us an example of how incarceration makes people with mental illnesses. When you are in the prison system, the expectations are very clear. You're given a set of rules. You're meant to follow those rules. If you don't follow the rules, there are consequences, and the consequences result in greater punishment greater control when a person with mental illness enters into that system, there's a misalignment between the street forward system and their ability to comply. When mentally ill people are not able to comply with the instructions and expectations that are laid out for them in jail. The result is greater and greater punishment. The end of the line punishment is solitary confinement of people run afoul of the rules in prison. Enough Times they can be sent to solitary confinement, which is a disastrous outcome for people with mental illness. Plug a little bit about how prisons can make people who come in mentally stable on well themselves. This has been something that I think we've actually come to to have a greater degree of understanding and empathy for as a society in recent months with the pandemic one of the things that has struck me so often and so strongly when I have seen people in prison. Is that being isolated from ones? Family from one's everyday life takes a profound toll on. On any of us, and so I think now that those of us who live free lives have also experienced a condition where we are not able to go to our loved ones when they are ill. We're not able to visit people in the hospital when they need us. We're not able to go to weddings and funerals. We're not able to see our. Our elderly loved ones and I think that gives us a tiny beginning of a taste of what what we do people when we incarcerate them, but there's there's so much more than that as well and that fundamental misalignment that I spoke about earlier really gets at the heart of that, and that is that people who are mentally ill to begin with are. Are In circumstances that are not therapeutic and supportive at all that are extremely punitive, and there are often punished more for their symptoms, but also people who enter into prison in a psychologically stable state are put in circumstances that are meant to degrade and meant to dehumanize, and it's unrealistic for us to imagine that people can emerge from those situations psychologically intact. You have a chapter in the book called Neutral Loaf. What is that? And why did you organize going to chapter around the? So new Trillo F- IS A. Approach for lack of a better word in many correctional facilities across our country. It goes by many different names, but essentially it is. A food item that is supplied to people in prison as often as punishment, oftentimes within roms of solitary confinement, where the nutritional meet needs of the person are all extensively met, but they are met by grinding up. For example, the leftovers of several prison meals put into a loaf pan baked, and then sliced into chunks, or sometimes they'll be a very detailed list of ingredients that go into a loaf that is actually baked as its own thing. The ingredients include things like beans, oats, margarine, mechanically separated poultry ingredients that off a checklist of nutritional needs, but are then combined and prepared in a way that is absolutely disgusting when you hear people describe. The experience at eating it. It's intended to be disgusting and so the reason that I wrote about it was really. To get at the urge that I see so much in our nation's car practices, which is to make people suffer. I think neutral of to me was just a prime example of how blatant our intention is with that. We say that we incarcerate people to rehabilitate them or to keep our community safe, and yet the foremost thing that I saw over, and over again is how much we want people to suffer once the they're held within our jails and prisons, so serving someone an incredibly disgusting known. Known to be tasteless at best and really foul tasting at worst is food knowing that they are going to perhaps on eat that at all, or if they do it to be extremely unpleasant experience that to me was just a crystal clear example of how the intention behind how we treat people is not aligned with what we say. Our intention is when we incarcerate people. You write about Norway, which has adopted a strikingly different model of incarceration, but this is really just in the last twenty five years, or so you want to just say a little bit about what their penal system used to be like, and what prompted a search for something different, so in the nineteen eighties and nineties, Norway had a prison system that looked very much like our prison. Prison system and they had quite a bit of violence within their jails and prisons. They had a high recidivism rate. The recidivism rate at that time was between sixty and seventy percent which was on a par with the three year. RECIDIVISM rate in the US right now is sixty eight percent so so really similar comes and similarly fraught environments within the jails and prisons themselves. They looked at the situation. The government looked at the situation, acknowledged that it wasn't working that they weren't having the outcomes that they desired and and they also had a system where there were there were escapes. A correctional officers had been killed and so they took a very hard look at the prison system to revamp it to see how outcomes could improve and safety of the system could improve. And as I learned more about this system, they assigned a working group within the justice system to look at changes that could be made and one of the central tenets that came out of that working group was to stop meeting hard with hard and start meeting hard with soft, and what I learned they meant by. This was that if you take a harsh stance of punishment toward people when they enter. Enter the legal system. You don't get the outcomes that you desire the this idea of a hardened criminal, becoming more hardened in a prison setting with something that they really thought was true. They also when they say, start meaning hard with soft, meant that what they were really noticing was that people were coming into the prison system with these deficiencies in various realms of their lives that were keeping them from succeeding. So they decided to do. a needs assessment of everyone who came into prison immediately when they arrived to see. Do you have a substance use problem? While then we will use the time that you're incarcerated to get you mental health treatment for your addiction. Do need job training. Do you need education? Do you need language assistance? Do you need anger, management classes or parenting classes? What are the what are the root causes of the behaviors that are getting? You arrested that we can try to address so that when you that will use this time in prison constructively that when you leave prison, you don't comeback and that fundamental shift in philosophy was really fascinating to me. You know what struck me about this. As I read, it was that the approach in Norway is to focus on the future What's going to happen to the end made in the future? What's going to happen to his relationship with the community as to pose to in the United? States were at think you quote Anthony Kennedy of the Justice. As saying that you know here, we tend to think of the justice system as imposing sentences and don't really think beyond that. Don't really think about what actually happens in the prison system when sentences are imposed. That's right the principle that really guided some of this decision. Making was exactly as you say Dave that we need to be forward looking so when I talked to people in those systems, they would say the crime is the one thing we cannot change. That's the thing in the past. It's not our job to look backwards to the crime, which we cannot change what we can change now is outcomes going forward? Another really key element of this in terms of their approach was to say the punishment is your loss of liberty. That's the entire punishment. You don't get to sleep at home with your family. You don't get to structure your day like you want to. That's the entire punishment of. Of Incarceration, there's not additional punishment that means that you have to suffer more that you have other rights taken away. It's merely your loss of liberty, so then given. That's the punishment that just exists by you being here than when you are here. Let's use the time constructively. The outcomes in this case is not just the outcome for the prisoner. It's the outcome for the community that will will eventually he'll join no question so as I said, nor we had this recidivism rate in the nineteen eighties and nineties that was between sixty and seventy percent, and that recidivism rate has dropped to twenty percent so only twenty percent of Norwegian prisoners are now arrested in the two years after their release. It's taken a lot of work for them to get to this place, and it isn't just as simple as saying. We're going to provide programming so a really critical shift occurred in the role of the prison officer are term for a correctional officer where they said that instead of just being a guard instead of being purely about security and control that the prison officer was now going to become someone with a really complex role that was assisting in this process of. Bolstering a person's development and strength as they move through the prison system, so it was a role that was more akin to social worker. In addition to the security duties that the person had they would also have an ability to talk with the person about why they committed the crime. They committed what kinds of things they needed moving forward how they could set themselves on a more constructive path moving forward, and that role really shifted and changed in a very pronounced way. Christine Mantras is an associate professor of psychiatry and Human Behavior at the Brown University Medical School, and the author of waiting for an echo the madness of American incarceration. She'll be back and talk more after a break. I'm Dave. This is fresh air support for this podcast and the following message come from going through it. A male chimp original podcast hosted by Tracy. Clayton Tracy speaks with fourteen notable black women including Josie. W Rice Ilhan. Lean Awaith Angela Davis and more discussing a pivotal moment when they decided it was time to make a change. Subscribe and listen on Apple or wherever you get your podcasts. We're speaking with Dr Christine Montross a psychiatrist who treats patients with serious mental illnesses. She has a new book about the prison system in America and the harm. She says it does both to those with mental illnesses, and those who are mentally stable. Her book is called waiting for an echo. We were talking about the alternative system of confinement and rehabilitation in effect in Norway's prisons in the differences are quite striking. You went to visited a place called Halden prison. What did it look like when you arrived? Camp, holy antithetical any prison I had ever seen Dave so I was picked up at the train station by the warden driven onto these very park, like grounds and really beautiful setting and the ward explained to me that when the architects designed the facility at Halden prison that it was really important to them to have the prison feel as though it was set in nature, and you know there's historical precedent for this, even in our own country that are asylums on hospitals and days of your. Seemed to be really critical that people had fresh air and fresh water and a beautiful view that that was understood even back then to be restorative, but that was very much implemented intentionally in the design of Halden prison. And then the living quarters for the men. who were held there and these are men who have committed extremely serious crimes, no different from men who are held in high security prisons in America the living quarters essentially look like a new and clean youth hostel or a Spartan dormitory Each man has his own room with a door that closes He has a bed with a colorful bedspread and he has his own bathroom. There's a TV on the wall. The door closes. Part of the the Norwegian philosophy is that everyone is entitled to their own privacy, and that's not something that you lose when you are incarcerated. Then there's a communal living area that looks kind of like A. Living Room would be an dormitory and there's a kitchen and one of the things that was extremely surprising to me and I think is surprising to all visitors that come from America is that there was a magnetic knife strip on the wall of the kitchen with all manner of cooking knives. There was a dartboard and someone who's trained to look for risk, and I'm seeing all of these implements. That could be used to for one person to hurt another, but these men use the knives to cook their own meals, and they used the darts to entertain themselves in the evenings before they all go to their rooms for sleep, and they use the silverware to eat their meals and. The level of personal responsibility is so much greater, and that's reflected in the environment. It was really striking right and these rooms the actually have they can lock. The rooms is at right. That's right there. Rooms have lock on the inside and again that idea is that they are entitled to privacy just like the rest of us. Some of these philosophies are grounded in The United Nations Mandela rules for incarceration. Idea that that they call Norway the principle of normality that when you are in prison, you are removed from the community, but that you are supposed to have as much as close inexperienced normal life as possible, so you are supposed to have the responsibility of getting up and going to work shopping for your own groceries at the prison grocery store and preparing your own meals, if laundering your own clothes, you're supposed to have the right to your own privacy and to your own entertainment and your own exercise, because the idea is not that you're supposed to be deprived of these things, but that the deprivation of your liberty in of itself is the punishment. All of the staffing and space and equipment does sound extravagantly expensive, certainly compared to American prisons. How how do the costs compare? The differences that you might imagine are not nearly as great and I. think that was an important misconception for me to address and look at head-on but I think we have this idea in our minds that Scandinavian societies are so very fundamentally different than American society that the level of taxation is so markedly high, and when I really dug into the numbers of what we spend on incarceration, and what they spend on incarceration and how? How they pay for that, versus how we pay for it I, realized that the differences are actually much smaller than we would imagine for example, the annual cost to hold a prisoner in Halden. Prison for a year is about ninety three thousand dollars, the average amount to hold a prisoner in an American supermax prison is from sixty to seventy five thousand dollars, but that number actually varies really widely and in my research. I came across places that. That cost as much as two hundred eight thousand dollars to hold someone in prison for a year in America. So that ranges really high, but in addition, their level of recidivism is so low that they may be paying a higher amount per year, but there are so many fewer prisoner years that accumulate, whereas we might be playing a slightly lower rate per year, but then people are returning over and over again to our prisons, so we're paying. Paying that yearly rate so many more times than an addition I found that the the the discrepancy between taxation rates between our country, and there's is actually totally overblown much to my surprise, so our average taxation rate is around thirty seven percent and Norway's is around thirty eight and a half so i. think some of the ways that we write off the fact that this wouldn't be possible for us are really based more mythology than in truth. It sounds almost idyllic, but there must be conflicts among these are people who've committed crimes. There must be prisoners who get oppositional or damage property or steal stuff How do they deal with it? So they deal with it and many of the same ways that we deal with behavior what we call behavioral disc control in my hospital, so there are consequences that are within a framework of greater understanding, but they're not so different than how many of us might handle our children. Our Children Act out, so if someone behaves at Halden, prison. They're separated from the community, so they might be asked to stay in their room for a day. They might be asked to stay in their room for a couple of days, or they're not allowed to participate in certain activities. They do have within Halden prison a room that someone could go in for. For essentially isolation, but they're very strictly mandated. This would be only in a situation, unlike in our American prisons, where people can be sent to solitary confinement for the accumulation of minor nonviolent grievances, you can only be sent to this specific room and Halden prison for very particular violent actions, so aggression or self injury, and if you are in fact, sent their. There are strict parameters on how long a person can remain there, and it's a matter of days, and which was such sharp contrast to me from the fact that that people in America can languish in solitary confinement for months years even decades, so they do have the ability to. Separate people from the community if it is in fact really necessary to do so, but when I asked these exact same questions. They said. It's very unusual for us to have to do that. You know the guards are are fifty percent female. None of the guards are armed, and they have not once had an episode of aggression from prisoner to a guard. Have to say it sounds too good to be true. They've literally never been an attack by a prisoner on a guard after years in operation I mean. Are there critics in Norway or or journalists who have questions about these claims I mean? Are you sure you just didn't get the? You know the the tour in which you kind of things are buffed up and and looked better than they might be. The dog and pony show right. So there are journalists who have written on both sides there plenty of journalists who have have dug into this and have found the same things that I have found, and then they're. The critics are largely critics of the philosophy that. Can't really be criticized. I mean when you look at recidivism rates when you look at the outcomes of safety and justice. In Norway, those are objective statistics, so that outcomes cannot really be criticized there are certainly people who critique the system for the fact that it's seem super luxurious. Think that. There are people who hold the same tenants that I think are fundamental tenant of the American criminal legal system, which is that this is too nice too much for people who have committed crimes, but I think from the government standpoint. If it's working, then it's justified. Christine Mantra is a psychiatrist who treats patients with serious mental illnesses. Her new book is waiting for an echo the madness of American incarceration. We'll talk more after a break. This is fresh air. For Miss An to Becky to Karen. Our very own Karen Napa Karen Karen. Grigsby Bates shares the evolution of the nickname for a certain kind of white woman I'm looking forward to the next iteration. I want my name back. That's coming up on NPR's code. Switch. We're speaking with Christine Mantra she is a clinical psychiatrist and she has a new book about the damage prison. Life does to mental health and how things might change. It's called waiting for an echo the madness of American incarceration. You know one of the things I can imagine people saying as well. Maybe this works in Norway, but American us. Society is so different. Norway is thought of as being more ethnically homogeneous and probably. Having a fewer inequities in the distribution of wealth and income, so that you don't have these huge, terribly poor struggling communities, which make it harder sometimes for people to rebuild their lives when they get out of prison, I don't know what about that are Scandinavian countries just in a better position to undertake this kind of change well, there's no question that's candidate in countries are smaller than America right. There's no. There's no question about that, but to me. It was very interesting to think about Scandinavian countries compared to American States and the reality is that prison business is conducted really on a state by state level, so policy decisions about state, jails and prisons are really made. Made within the states, so you can see quite a bit of difference from one state to the next in terms of prison, conditions, prison policies sentencing trends all those kinds of things, so it was useful to me to begin to think about how the experiment of prison approach like that in Norway could be transferred to our states, and so that was one of the frames that I used to think about those very differences that you raise, and again I found those differences to be somewhat overblown, so as an example, the population of Norway around five point three million people, so that puts it just smaller than Colorado and Minnesota just larger than South Carolina and Alabama so. In the realm of state of our states, the population of Oslo is similar to the population of Nashville numbers wise. So then I. When I saw that I thought all right well, so let's compare American city to Norwegian city and I looked really closely at the demographics. are in Nashville. Nashville is sixty percent white Oslo. Is Seventy percent native Norwegian? That's not a gigantic difference. The other thirty percent of Norwegians are either immigrants or were born to immigrants in the major ethnic groups that make up that thirty percent are Pakistani and Somali, not light skinned Norwegian. People as I think we so often imagine, and they're also immigrants from a many other countries in the region Iraq Iran Turkey Vietnam Morocco the Philippines. And maybe one of the things that was most interesting to me. Is that forty percent of the kids in Oslo primary schools speak a language other than Norwegian as their first language. So I think when we have an idea of Scandinavian communities as these very homogeneous communities that really differ a great deal from our own. I think that that is perhaps an antiquated view, their racial and ethnic. Divisions, within American prisons are often. Pronounced me. People may join gangs or form cliques among people that share their ethnicity or race. Does that happen in the prisons in Norway? That's such a prominent discussion in American prisons. It's a real problem that is brought up over and over again. There are certainly talking about how the country is adapting to these shifting. Representation of different ethnic minorities within the Norwegian community and that you absolutely are seeing people who are starting to question some of the closely held tenets of. Socialism that provide benefits to people in the country, some of those there are issues of racism that are beginning to emerge in the country for sure, but I heard about those conversations much more as part of the cultural conversation, and I didn't hear about them within prison populations. We're at a time when there's more of an appetite for criminal justice reform than we've seen in a long time. states and local governments run a lot of prisons in jails. Do you see places where? Different approaches different models may be tried or are being tried. Definitely there are there projects going on around the country where people are beginning to look at these very issues, and in fact, there's been a fantastic program out of California that is taking groups of legislators and also prison, correctional officers and wardens to visit European prisons that are having better outcomes and part of this has been aimed at an effort to reduce the use of solitary confinement in American prisons. Solitary confinement is practice that we think of as reducing violence and promoting security in fact when we look at the numbers. Numbers, that's not the case. We don't have the outcomes from solitary confinement that would justify its use given how damaging practice it is, and so this group and California's taking the stakeholders over to visit prisons in Germany prisons like Halden in Norway to try to show them. How alternative methods are working and so that they can see firsthand the environment how the practices are implemented, and how outcomes are better not just for the prisoners, but also for the people who work in these conditions. You know one of the. One of the things I learned working here in Rhode Island which is a very insular, tiny little state with a very very long institutional memory, and so you have people who are working as correctional officers in the prisons, who if a correction officer was killed by an inmate ten or twenty years ago, there are still correctional officers working in the prisons who remember that incident and use that incident as justification to continue the practice of solitary confinement because of that risk that. Of the situation that happened many many years ago and that's you know justifiable fear of course when we're asking people to. To take on these dangerous jobs, but but one of the things that this group in California has realizes that if you take the correctional officers, who are the ones shouldering this fear and you show them the environment. It's not just academics. It's not just psychiatrist sewer talking about how to make the situation better, but you actually have prison officer speaking to prison officer talking about how things. Things have improved that. That's really a locust for change, and I think that those kinds of situations bring a lot of promise because the system has to be fixed, the system is broken, but we don't have to reinvent the wheel in order to fix it. There are places that can show us a roadmap for how to achieve the outcomes. We desire without US starting from scratch. Christine Montross. Thank you so much for speaking with us. Thank you Dave I. Really enjoyed it. Christine Montrose is associate professor of psychiatry and Human Behavior at the Brown University medical. School and the author of waiting for an echo the madness of American incarceration. Coming up TV critic David, B. and cooley reviews the new video streaming service peacock from NBC Universal. This is fresh air. What do you do when you have too many pickles in Alaska and not enough pancakes Syrup in New Jersey. On the next episode of planet, Money Summer School. We send supply and demand to the rescue. It's economics education. You always wanted never got around to every. Wednesday listen now to planet money from NPR. Support for NPR from whyy presenting the pulse podcast that takes you on adventures into unexpected corners of health and science plastic in the guts of deep sea creatures, crying after anesthesia building your own Internet. Each episode is full of fascinating stories and big ideas. The pulse available where you get your podcasts or at whyy dot ORC. Another new streaming service launched this week. This one comes from NBC universal and is called Peacock. It premiered with thousands of hours of old programs as well as a sampling of new ones are. TV critic David Being Cooley has this review as streaming TV services go. We already have a lot of options. That weren't available a year ago. Some wonderful ones like Disney plus and some terrible ones like maybe. There's also apple TV plus an HBO Max, and now there's peacock from NBC Universal. You can get a basic package of peacock for free which includes TV series like frazier movies like Jurassic, Park and some new peacock originals which I'll get to in a minute. But the peacock. Folks aren't in this just to give out freebies. For a monthly fee of about five dollars, you can become a subscriber to picot premium which provides access to an even larger library of movies and TV shows and access to NBC's talk shows and some network sporting events. And, if you double that fee paying about ten bucks a month, you get all that without any advertising. As with any streaming service, the decision of whether peacock is worth the money is up to you. For Me Netflix, Hulu Amazon and Disney plus for starters have enough inventory in quality originals, so I consider them valuable enough to add to my monthly bills. And Peacock even in its free version has some excellent offerings, the movie e t the extraterrestrial for example and the entire series run of Friday Night Lights. Ask for peacocks original series. Most of them are decidedly average. The programs for kids aren't even as good as the new ones on Disney plus and most of the new shows for adults. Aren't that good either? Especially, a new miniseries version of brave new world that plays more like a dull remake of westworld. But there are two new peacock programs that are worthwhile one that I like and one that I love. And both coincidentally are all about the secret gathering of intelligence by government agencies. The one I like is a comedy called intelligence, which is created and written by Nick Mohammed. He plays a low level British spy who? Makes for visiting American. Counterpart named Jerry Bernstein played by David Schwimmer from friends. Schwimmer plays him as cocky ugly American. So sure of himself that he's oblivious to how irritating he is too many of those around him. That's the same basic approach. Another friend Star Matt Leblanc took when he played an exaggerated version of himself in the hilarious showtime, Sitcom called episodes. And in-intelligence Schwimmer displays this the most, and the best. When he clashes with his British counterpart in boss Christine played by Sylvester la to`sell. I am now your best possible resource. Here for you so I want you to use me. Exploited me punish me. I want to feel as if I've been uploaded into each and every one of you. Guys. What are you doing I'm just welcoming everyone. Can we get them to stop? We're in the middle of Something Bank of England new American gaze on required sadly. Okay listen I just want to say I'm really excited about this. I think we can learn a lot from each other especially from me. It'll be a pleasure collaborating with one of our oldest closest allies welcome to. Q.. Thank you. Back to work everyone. On the more serious side, there's a drama series called the capture which is haunted me ever since I previewed it. It said in England and he has created written and directed by been changing. It starts off the story of Sean Emery a British soldier with complicated past. He was imprisoned for war crimes after serving in Afghanistan then released when video footage of the incident surfaced and exonerated him. The very night he was celebrating his release with his lawyers. He ended up in custody again this time accused of murdering one of his attorneys Hannah, who was last seen with him on London City, surveillance cameras. A detective inspector on the case played by Holliday. Grainger interrogates him and her initial theory is that he may have no memory of his own violent actions Sean is played by Callum Turner. Michaud. Can you lose control. I and speaking almost yourself. Mr. To. For the right to a phone call. A. Fan Calls at my discretion. So one was sit down together. And try to figure out. What happened between you and For a awhile, that's how the captured develops, but then it turns out that the video catching Sean in the act, maybe a deep fake. And if so made by whom? And if that video can't be trusted what else and who else is being manipulated? Throughout the capture scenes or photographed or punctuated from the points of view of remote cameras. It's a sinister perspective that keeps getting more threatening. By the time the first season of the capture is over. I realized the threat. It was dramatizing about what happens when people do or don't believe what they see on video is even more potentially menacing in theory than it in this particular miniseries. Watching the capture on peacock may not be a way to escape reality for that. There are plenty of other TV shows and movies, but it sure is a thought provoking new way to look at it. David in Cooley is editor of the website TV worth watching and professor of TV studies at Rohan University. Fresh Air's executive producer is Danny Miller. Our Technical Director and engineer is Audrey Bentham we had additional engineering help from Charlie Chire. Our interviews and reviews are produced an edited by Amy Salad. Phyllis Myers Roberta shorrock Sam brigger. Lauren Krenzler Soman Theresa Madden. They challenge and Joel Wolfram. Our associate producer of digital media is Molly Seavy Nesper Seth Kelly directed today show. Jerry Gross I'm duties. Room.

Coming up next