Freedom for Hayes?

Michael Charles Hayes, who killed four people and wounded five others during a shooting spree in Forsyth County in July 1988, may soon be freed because of a watershed ruling from the N.C. Court of Appeals. His eventual release is certain, but the state has done little to prepare for it, or address cases in general in which defendants like Hayes are found not guilty by reason of insanity.

The state should develop programs to supervise the criminally insane after their release. That's crucial in a state with a deeply flawed mental-health-care system that often neglects cases of all kinds.

Hayes, now 45, was in a psychotic state aggravated by alcohol and marijuana when he pulled out his rifle and fatally shot Crystal Cantrell, Tom Nicholson, Melinda Hayes and Ronnie Hull and wounded the others. The state had seen few cases even remotely similar to this one. Area cases in which lawyers argue not guilty by reason of insanity are rare. After Hayes' commitment to a state mental hospital, it soon became apparent that the state's supervision of him left much to be desired.

At Dorothea Dix Hospital in Raleigh, Hayes has spent many days on unsupervised leave. Now, he's married, holds a job, and spends several days a week away from the hospital with his family, the Journal reported Wednesday. He stays in a cottage for independent patients when he is at the hospital.

He is all but free now, so his life upon release won't be that much different from his current one. "Maybe the law is catching up with the reality because … he's been out more than he's in," Forsyth District Attorney Tom Keith said Wednesday.

Each year, Hayes has had the right to a hearing on whether he should be released. He can ask a judge to determine whether he remains mentally ill or is dangerous to others. He waived that right last year, apparently realizing that emotions were too raw on the 20th anniversary of the shootings for a judge to free him. But his attorneys appealed Judge Steven Balog's 2007 decision not to release him.

Tuesday, the N.C. Court of Appeals broke legal ground by ruling that Hayes can be released with supervisory conditions. That was not an option for such defendants before. Judges either had to keep them in state hospitals or release them without monitoring.

Hayes is scheduled for a recommitment hearing the week of Sept. 14 in Forsyth Superior Court. He could be released then or shortly thereafter if a judge decides he is no longer a threat to society.

Keith said that even the state's evidence would show a recommendation for conditional release. The only psychiatrist called by the state at Hayes' 2007 hearing testified that he still had an unspecified personality disorder, and recommended that he be released with conditions.

In the last few years, Keith said his office has agreed with most privileges Hayes' doctors have recommended, realizing that Hayes had case law on his side.

"What (Judge) Balog has done, what we've done, we've worked out a de facto medical parole," Keith said. "As we give him privileges, he also has responsibilities and the hospital checks on him."

A strong supervisory plan must be in place when Hayes is released. It should, as Keith noted, include random drug testing and checks with Hayes at his workplace and home. It should also mandate that Hayes attend Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous meetings.

Keith still considers Hayes dangerous. "Anybody who kills that many people in the recent past is still a threat," he said. "And then you have, what are the feelings of the victims?"

"I am sure they are very upset, no matter what the law says."

He said that North Carolina should have a verdict of guilty but mentally ill. That would allow for a strict supervisory framework. Several other states allow for that verdict. But despite a push in the state legislature in the 1990s, the concept has never gained traction in North Carolina.

At the very least, the legislature should define the law on conditional release for those found not guilty by reason of insanity, exploring such questions as whether the state's parole system or mental-health care system should bear the responsibility for supervising them when they're released.

It's uncertain which system will supervise Hayes, but both have been plagued by problems. And if he violates the conditions of his release, the procedure for recommitting him is uncertain as well.

The carnage Hayes inflicted 21 years ago and his court case were unprecedented for this area. The state should have taken it as a clarion call for action to explore such complex cases and search for ways to better protect the public from the criminally insane.

With Hayes' release looming, the state should finally get to work.