It seems to me we have two different tacks of discussion here.
One is about how the LAW treats those deemed mentally ill.
But the other addresses how school officials should deal with disruptive, mentally ill, scary students (or teachers, for that matter). I think we’ve reached the point where school officials MUST be given the option to expel a student...especially after a judge ruled him “a danger to himself and others”. If we’re going to make them responsible for student safety, we must also agree to back them up and not second guess their decisions.
Great point. I don’t think the law could’ve done anything else with Cho, given what was known at the time. He stalked the female students, they got a restraining order. He started talking suicidally, they got a temporary detention order and basically forced him to get outpatient help. He was a sulking, closed-in loner, eventually his roommates ignored him. Nothing out of the ordinary, really.
But I’m really surprised that the authorities at Tech didn’t do something when the guy started disrupting a class to the point of keeping the majority of them away in fear. That’s a little more than garden-variety depression.
God knows I don’t want to lower the boom on any student who’s the least bit nonconformist or “off” (I was a huge misfit when I was in college). But when somebody starts being consistently disruptive to a class, something needs to be done.
}:-)4
I understand what you are saying, and frankly, my first response was to do exactly as you suggested, but I've had time to contemplate the results of doing so.
The wy it works now, is to use voluntary commitment to a course of treatment in lieu of forced compliance. The carrot is that it won't go on your public record, unless you require hospitalization. In most cases, hospitalization is not warranted any way, and secondly, there are few beds available.
Cho told them he would comply, but he obviously lied. He did not return for treatment when we walked out with a appointment slip in his hand.
What we are really lacking, is a way to followup on people who intentionally break their agreements with the mental health treatment organizations. It think that this aspect can be strengthened and fixed, but it will take resources to do so.
But it can be done without taking away freedoms, or causing someone to be labeled with a crazy tag and affecting their future and their rights and privileges.
As to guns, I think that once a person is under a doctors care for a mental illness, the gun rights should be suspended until the treatment is no longer needed.
This is big step. It may well cause people to avoid help, but it may be the only rational thing we can do.
Currently, the only people who are tagged with this restriction are those who are involuntarily committed or are hospitalized, which add up to a very small portion or those being treated and this tag never goes away, which I view as a part of the problem perhaps.
In Cho's case, his ethnicity was a huge factor in why he never sought treatment and refused to seek help. It is a bad stigma in his ethnic society to be weak or a failure to play the assigned role in the family.