>> at our dsm facilities where we have on-site staff, we can ensure what they do was done. >> how many facilities have on-site staff? >> about 50. >> in that one facility -- >> full-time folks spend the majority of time, they have another facility close by they have to provide coverage of. >> in the last couple years have you used financial penalty to get your facility to do what you need them to do to meet the standards? >> more than two. i heard earlier it only occurred twice. it has at least been 10 or 15 that i am aware of but we could get you a number. >> i asked mister crenshaw if you want to the second round but it wasn't necessary. i am not quite sure why we are having all this consternation about inspections of facilities meeting standards and whether they are relevant and the standards are doable and make sense and why we don't have the follow-up we are supposed to have. my question, we need extra people or streamlining of operations or better commitment? >> based on our recommendations the primary issue is a processed one including adequate follow-up, documentation to suppor

if all to field offices which some are resistance to working with the dsm. two invoke necessary changes. the challenges identified in each layer oversight system, is less effective than it otherwise could be. meanwhile, i.c.e. continues to send millions of dollars in detentionn oversight, that went out achieving comprehensive itconsistent compliance. i.c.e. can and should be doing more. princes, i.c.e. does not fully utilize tools available to it to try compliance among its contractors. a recent review of i.c.e. this management of detention contracts, found that i.c.e. is failing to use quality assurance tools and impose consequences for contract noncompliance. moreover, we found that instead of holding facilities accountable through available financial accounts, i.c.e. frequently issued waivers to deficientqu facilities. exempting them from having to comply with the dip dungeon standards. until i.c.e. fully implements corrective actions, the oversight will not be as effective as it needs to be. this concludes my testimony and i'm happy to answer any questio

is it sufficient is if a person has something that is considered to be a mental disorder in the dsm and calculated that one of five people in the united states has some mental disorder. were talking about 60 plus million people. all of them can go to the jury of whether they have the capacity to know that what they were doing when they committed the crime was morally wrong. >> they should be given the opportunity to be tried. they should not be legislatively cut off at the need attorneys. there are many hoops they would have to jump through but if they have a mental disease that is diagnosed they should get in the door and get evaluated and then proceed -- >> can we ask you about a premise of your argument and if we look to history and if history supports what do you say, the more obligated to go with it now. i just want to ask how and why that is so. there are many ways in which understanding criminal culpability has changed over the years. and how do we figure out, which are the ones that the constitution requires to stay the same now as they were back in the common law are back in th

based on dsm criteria, the diagnostic criteria for addiction. they estimate this that there are 8,000 plus people in san francisco with opiate use disorder. we know in methadone treatment we have 4516. that includes methadone treatment. we can count it. it including every prescriber in the whole city. that shows an extra 2000 or so that people. that means that we have 3669 people who aren't in treatment, right? so if they are not in treatment and all of the open slots we have capacity for up to 13,000, why aren't they in treatment? the national survey asked that of people who aren't in treatment, how much want treatment? 5% perceive the need for treatment who aren't in treatment when it is freely available, right? that means out of the 3,600, 370 want treatment and aren't getting it. why aren't they getting it? this is an important question to ask for treatment on demand. when it is available on a walk-in basis on the same day, yet uv over 300 people not getting treatment, why is that? i think the answer to that has to do with people experiencin

do you mean everything that was listed as a mental disorder in the latest edition of the dsm? >> it is not about the diagnosis. you asked what mental capacity means and was mental illness means. it is as if -- it is not about a belief or justifying. you actually can't tap into the part of the brain that allows you to choose right versus wrong. jury 740 jurisdictions made the distinction regardless of what the diagnosis is. >> what is the answer to my question? is it sufficient if the person has something considered a mental disorder? it is calculated that one in 5 people in the united states has some mental disorder, 16 million plus people, all of them can go to the jury on the question whether they had capacity to know what they were doing was morally wrong? >> the state should be given the opportunity to try, they shouldn't be legislatively cut off. there are many mechanisms in place, many hoops they would have to jump through but if they have a mental disease that is diagnosed they should be able to get in the door and get even now you waited and proceed. >> can i ask you a