Posted on 05/27/2005 12:52:53 PM PDT by neverdem
My kind of headshrinker!
Article says, "Commitment is a judicial decision that is made by the court or by a mental health commission." However, I'll bet that 90% of committments are made by cops who may not read or write, but they are brutal. All the niceties and fine distinctions in this article are irreleant under these circumstances.
For me, that says it all. These people are con artists.
Well said.
WOW 90%!
Sounds like a rectal estimate to me.
Who has the greater claim for freedom and safety? The innocent or somebody who has crossed the line and committed a murder? Anybody who walks free in society is absolutely responsible and accountable for his actions. You have brought up the case of a "schizophrenic" who assaulted somebody, implying that his "disease" was responsible for the crime. But if "schizophrenia" leads to assault, why aren't all schizophrenics locked up for this? How come most of them have no history of violent behavior?
Is it inconceivable to you that a "schizophrenic" might have volition, might be just as capable as anybody else of knowingly forming evil intent and acting on it? Or are you so easily swayed by the (very malleable) opinion of some pompous, pipe-smoking, tweed-wearing "expert" who will be contradicted the very next day when one of his colleagues takes the stand?
And part of the problem is what do we do with people who have compulsive problems like sex offenders? There is no adequate treatment that will guarantee that they will not reoffend. I don't like resorting to keeping them in mental institutions after their sentence is up.
If the issue is we need to keep these people behind bars, then the sentences should be long enough to protect society.
And another part is when does a person's responsibility to say, "Hey, I need help" end?
My family also has a long family history of bi-polar disorder. It is easily traced through the family and seems to affect the first born males. Medication is extremely beneficial for some bi-polar patients, as long as they take it. (which is often the greatest challenge of treatment)
The doctors (both psychiatric and non) have told me that they just don't understand enough about the human brain and how it works to classify "mental illness" as accurately as they would like. However they are continuing to learn more each day to support your statement that these illnesses are very likely caused by chemical inbalances in the brain. After watching my 8 year old on steroids (asthma), I can assure you that chemicals can cause a complete personality change.
IMO mental illness is very real. The issue of whether it should be used to excuse a person whe has committed a crime or to confine an individual against his/her will is a separate issue, which is not nearly as clear cut in my mind.
Police, criminals, jails, hospitals, patients, doctors, judges, legislators, all part of the same system, the same bolt of fabric. We need to talk about this "liberty" idea.
No, but those people
always have the best stories
for late night parties!
---The issue of whether it should be used to excuse a person whe has committed a crime or to confine an individual against his/her will is a separate issue, which is not nearly as clear cut in my mind.---
Exactly! Those of us who have had it in our family know it's real, but at the same time, very few of us are so far gone we don't know what we're doing is right or wrong.
Legal insanity and mental illnesses are two different critters.
Most "insanity" is just plain maliciousness and misplaced priorities.
I think there is real insanity.
But that is manifested in an inability to function, not crime and mayhem.
Connecting the War on Guns & Drugs [my title]
The war on guns: Joel Miller explains how drug cops are killing 2nd Amendment
I just found the article in the former link, but I've read the whole thread in the latter. They do a pretty good job explaining why I think the war on drugs is hopeless, and why it's a threat to many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights.
Something is funny about the War on Drugs. Just as something was funny about the War on Poverty and the War on Cancer. War is being debased to just another meaningless funding center.
I would agree with Szasz that something is seriously wrong with the mental health profession, psychiatrists in particular. I wouldn't trust any of their organizations at all. I am also not a fan of mental institutions, having been in one, I found the experience to be totally unhelpful and it was sad seeing the other people there, who seemed more imprisoned than helped.
However, even if there were no psychiatrists at all, there would be people (like myself) whose brains do not function correctly and thus mood, behavior, vision, etc. are all effected. The medications, designed to treat chemical (read: physical) abnormalities in the brain produce tangible results. SOMETHING real and physical is going on.
The brain controls everything about you, including what you see, hear and how you interpret experiences. If there is any malfunction, it can effect what you actually see and hear (hallucinations, voices, etc.), and you really believe that you see and hear these things. I have known schizophrenics (most of whom are not violent). These are not people who would be normal if not for the pesky psychiatrists.
I can accept that there is a lot we don't know about the human brain, unfortunately, Stasz seems to think we know enough to say that people like me are not really as diseased as a person with Parkinson's or diabetes.
Do you engage in criminal behavior? Where psychiatry lets us down is in the compromise of the rights of the law-abiding.
The insanity defense and the inability to reform criminals puts the rest of us in peril -- precisely the situation our justice system is supposed to prevent. It was a sad day when pseudo-science took precedence over a citizen's right to live free and unmolested.
I would ask the little "nigger boy", but he's dead because no one executed justice on his purp.
I have engaged in criminal behavior (assault) as a result of mental instability. When I fly into a rage I have in the past been violent.
The "insanity defense" is a bogeyman, it is not a threat to society.
As the article pointed out, the "insanity defense" is only used in about 1% of cases, and when it is used, it is only successful less than a quarter of the time. Even when it is successful, quite often the person is then committed to an institution for the mentally insane, they are not just released. It is very difficult to be released from these institutions if one is found criminally insane. For example, in New York you have to stay in the institution for at least 5 years, even if your offense was shoplifting.
The "insanity defense" is no danger to society.
The far greater danger is mentally ill people going to jail and prison, where they do not receive adequate treatment, then being released back onto the streets once their sentences are up. I think it can be established that this has put far more people in danger than the insanity defense ever has.
Perhaps unknowingly, you're mixing two arguments here. First of all, who says the mentally ill are adequately treated? My guess is, Szasz would disagree saying that psychiatry can't even adequately define insanity.
Would you agree that criminal behavior is insane? Murder. Mayhem. Rape. Child molestation. Or is it just a mental illness and therefore not criminal? Who has rights? The law abiding, or the insane, or the criminal?
I notice that you say you have engaged in criminal behavior "as a result of mental instability" and admit you fly into rages. Would all criminal behavior fit into that category?
Why would it be a "far greater danger" to the law-abiding for the mentally ill/criminal element to go to prison?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.