Mass Murder And Mental Illness

[oftheherd1]

I did not think I suggested a solution.

I agree.

I did not know I supposed to come up with one.

I guess that is up to you.

I actually do have a solution: Nobody owns guns. Then at least you can't shoot people when you flip your lid.

but that is not a popular idea now, is it.

No it isn't. Crimes were committed by mentally ill persons before guns were invented or easily accessible. And that is the point of my posts. Why should I or anyone else, be inconvenienced by being prohibited guns, when mental illness is the problem, not any weapon?

Also, can you make it mandatory that people seeking treatment will be reported?
Looks nice on paper, right?
but here is the thing: we all have our dark thoughts now and then. How we express them I suppose depends on our surroundings. Can we freely tell somebody that we are having dark moments likely nothing much will come off it.
If we have to fear repercussions, will we even share our thoughts? And I am not talking about me, myself and I either....

Is there a difference between having dark thoughts and taking actions based on them that cause even one death, never mind multiple deaths?

And, to close the circle, maybe we need to fill in some of the gaping holes in our health care system. For one make programs for mental health more accessable, and last, when it is more accessable you can find the really dangerous people before they run amok.

Sorry, but I think you are starting to sound like billcihak, except you are proposing a very liberal point of view where he is very conservative. We have accessibility to health care now. Can we force people to access it? Should we? Please pardon me if I am wrong in the way you come across to me with that comment.

But to answer, we can find really dangerous people now. Some after they run amok, some before. The question begging solutions is how do we give ourselves the best chance to identify them soon enough for protection before they run amok? And once identified, what do we do with them?

And of course you will always have the 'normal' person who wakes up one morning with the urge to kill....

How normal is it for 'normal' persons to wake up with the urge to kill? Or are you talking about a caprecious fantasy the person knows they will never carry out, and is simply using to assuage their anger?

 

[oftheherd1]

The point I was driving at is when people have a mental illness, because we can't see it, we presume that it's pseudo-science or what have you. This goes for people who have mental illness. Because our country ALSO has a tendency to treat symptoms, a person with a mental illness will take medication that helps, feel better and pronounce themselves cured, stop taking their medication and end the cycle with an inevitable psychotic break that lands them in a hospital for a few days (at least) until they can get their meds stabilized.

Committing people with a dangerous mental illness to prison? Because they have committed no crimes. Again, the quandary here is that our country, at least in principle, espouses personal liberty as a default position. I shouldn't go to prison because I might break a law. I go to prison because I broke a law and was convicted in a court of law.

First paragraph: Some mental illnesses are hard to detect for lay people. Some are even difficult for mental health professionals to diagnose. I have seen people whose actions told me they were suffering from some mental illness, even if I didn't know a name for it or a cure for it. I have heard that some people receiving medication for mental illnesses do stop taking their medication. If that makes them dangerous, then clearly something needs to be done. So we have to decide on a course of action. Also, if it has been decided that only counselling therapy will help, should we ensure they get it, even if that means they must be confined to a hospital?

Second paragraph: Sorry, I should have worded that better. I didn't mean we should commit mentally ill people to jail. I meant to a hospital that treats those who are mentally ill, and that they in fact get any treatment that will help them, or at least make them better able to cope with daily life, whether in or out of the hospital. And again agreed; it is something that must be done with great care so as not to incorrectly put a person in a mental hospital, refuse to give them the best treatment, or keep them past a time when they are able to re-enter society without being a danger to society.

 

[harlan]

I think people are forgetting that there are plenty of signs prior to these extreme events. Mental illnesses make take months, even years, to advance. But our society is constructed in such a way that the mentally ill fall between the cracks. No individual, no community, and no institution seems willing to admit that we ARE our brother's keeper. When another person passes us, and we know there is something wrong, we just let it slide.

'Not our problem.' In the case of Mr. Holmes, he isn't a student anymore? Guess the college has no responsiblity to find out where he is after he withdraws.

 

[elder999]

I think people are forgetting that there are plenty of signs prior to these extreme events. Mental illnesses make take months, even years, to advance. But our society is constructed in such a way that the mentally ill fall between the cracks. No individual, no community, and no institution seems willing to admit that we ARE our brother's keeper. When another person passes us, and we know there is something wrong, we just let it slide.

'Not our problem.' In the case of Mr. Holmes, he isn't a student anymore? Guess the college has no responsiblity to find out where he is after he withdraws.

Psychiatrist warned university about accused Colorado gunman: report

DENVER (Reuters) - A psychiatrist who treated the former graduate student accused of killing 12 people in a shooting rampage at a movie theater in Colorado warned her university about him more than a month before the massacre, a published report said on Wednesday.
Dr Lynne Fenton notified a so-called threat-assessment team at the University of Colorado, Denver, in early June that she was alarmed by the behavior of James Holmes, but no further action was taken, the Denver Post reported, citing an anonymous source. Reuters could not immediately confirm the report.

Ya see, the problem is that you can run around in the opposite sex's clothes, or dye your hair any color, or be homeless, or claim you're a reptiloid from the planet Xanthu, or that you had tea with Jesus just this morning, or that your dog does algebra and designs yachts, and as long as your behavior doesn't represent potential harm to yourself or others, you're "sane"-or, at least sane enough that the law can't really do anything about it-no one can except for you.

On the other hand, you can present as a normal, quiet guy who keeps to himself-or is affable. Who keeps his yard up-or doesn't. Who goes to work every day and does a good job-or is a lousy employee, or unemployed. Just a regular guy-and the universe between your ears can be a place that is 100% nuckin' futz, down the road and around the corner where the busses don't go anymore......ya never know. :lfao:

 

[Tgace]

Most of the time there are plenty of signs...there just are not many mechanisims to deal with them.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[Wo Fat]

As a society, we actually have made a decision as to how we will treat those who are mentally ill/emotionally troubled/insane/whateva: we lock them up in state prisons all across the country, and we let the warehousing and recidivism run its rather predictable course. Per capita, these people come primarily from the inner cities although not exclusively. The rest are primarily from rural areas that we have equally forsaken.

By jamming these people directly through the criminal system and locking them up for as long as we can, without regard to their mental condition, we ensure that they are not eligible for lawful gun ownership and we convince ourselves that they are perpetual criminals not requiring (or being deserving) of psychiatric care and treatment.

Ironically, it's these people who are least likely to commit the next massacre of innocents. But we'll have to wait until the next massacre to confirm.

 

[oftheherd1]

As a society, we actually have made a decision as to how we will treat those who are mentally ill/emotionally troubled/insane/whateva: we lock them up in state prisons all across the country, and we let the warehousing and recidivism run its rather predictable course. Per capita, these people come primarily from the inner cities although not exclusively. The rest are primarily from rural areas that we have equally forsaken.

By jamming these people directly through the criminal system and locking them up for as long as we can, without regard to their mental condition, we ensure that they are not eligible for lawful gun ownership and we convince ourselves that they are perpetual criminals not requiring (or being deserving) of psychiatric care and treatment.

Ironically, it's these people who are least likely to commit the next massacre of innocents. But we'll have to wait until the next massacre to confirm.

If there is the slightest chance that a defense counsel can make a claim of innocence by reason of insanity, they will do so. The reason being if they are successful, their client cannot be convicted of the crime. They will be sent to a hospital until such time as the state mechanism says they agree with the medical profession that the person is no longer criminally insane, and therefore no longer a danger to society.

So I personally disagree society has made a conscious decision to take mentally ill persons and stash them away in jails. Can you argue that some, or even many, who are in prisons are mentally ill? Not without a pretty broad definition of mental illness. But even if we assume that is true, what is the solution? Should we not then force them into treatment? Who wants to wait until the next massacre without a solution?

 

[harlan]

No. There is a decision to NEGLECT the mentally ill until they become an identifiable/quantifiable problem.

 

[MJS]

The simple reality is that all murderers are insane. Sane people don't kill without damn good reason. That doesn't mean they're not responsible for their actions, of course.

Holmes' mental status is a tricky question. It probably CANNOT be determined. His side will say he's too crazy to be prosecuted, and produce experts to support this claim. The prosecution will say he's totally sane, and produce experts to support this claim.

As far as gun control goes, I'd like to see you (generic you) define "mental illness" as you'd apply it to gun ownership. Are you going to prohibit anyone who has ever been depressed from buying a gun? Or only those who are actively suicidal/homicidal? Or are you expecting psychologists to predict which currently safe and functional people will become dangerous? Perhaps we could prohibit anyone without a PhD in criminal psychology from selling guns or ammunition, and make an extensive psychological evaluation mandatory before each purchase.

Good luck with that...

I heard something on the news this morning about his mental state. I wish I could recall or find a link somewhere as to what they said. Anyways, perhaps, to answer your question, which is a very good one BTW, I think we should define what mental illness is. Of course, I'm sure there're varying degrees of it, but for the sake of discussion, I'll use the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_disorder

So IMHO, I'd say that anyone who would fit in any of the categories listed, then no, those people should not own a gun. Actually, now that I think about it, the news report said that the docs that were seeing this nutjob, knew he was a nut, yet did or said nothing. Why not? I mean, common sense should dictate that if you knew that someone was planning something or had severe issues, that you'd say something to prevent a tragedy.

And I'm sure if some of the families of the victims are sueing for not having the emergency exits alarmed, I'm sure they'll be filing suits against the docs.

 

[MJS]

And then again, Holmes won't be the last. There will seemingly be another "tipping point", followed by another and another after that.

We have to get to a point where we stop making the excuses and start making a few Americans unhappy for the sake of sound regulation that keeps dangerous weapons out of the hands of unstable people. If we can regulate explosives with good reason, then we can somehow regulate how unstable people obtain dangerous weapons. I admit, I don't know what "somehow" entails.

But we have to do something beyond the status quo.

Agreed!!! Its just like anything. People are so lax about things, but then go into panic mode when something bad happens, then they run around like a chicken with its head cut off, finding ways to address the problem. 9-11 is a good example. Terrorism isn't something that just popped up out of nowhere...its been going on for a looooong time. Yet all it took was a bunch of terrorists to crash some planes into buildings, and what happened.....The War On Terror. All you gotta do is just watch....something happenes, and the next day you have armed cops in all the airports, bus stations, train stations, etc. Sadly, you're right..it takes a tragedy for the wake up call to happen.

 

[granfire]

If there is the slightest chance that a defense counsel can make a claim of innocence by reason of insanity, they will do so. The reason being if they are successful, their client cannot be convicted of the crime. They will be sent to a hospital until such time as the state mechanism says they agree with the medical profession that the person is no longer criminally insane, and therefore no longer a danger to society.

So I personally disagree society has made a conscious decision to take mentally ill persons and stash them away in jails. Can you argue that some, or even many, who are in prisons are mentally ill? Not without a pretty broad definition of mental illness. But even if we assume that is true, what is the solution? Should we not then force them into treatment? Who wants to wait until the next massacre without a solution?

Just watch any of the 'locked up' shows.
They always have a section of prison with inmates that could go off at any given time, it takes 5 or more jailers to move them from one cell to another, they are moved to exercise yards like circus lions from their cages to the arena in caged pathways....there is no way in hell they are all there upstairs! And no, those people would be better served in a mental hospital under medication to even out those mood swings and anger issues, for the sake of their safety and their surroundings.


@ MJS: I don't think though you can't define mental illness past not fitting the norm of averages. you start with the odd little habit and end up with head banging madness...

And last but not least, as pgsmith has pointed out, the mechanisms to deal with those oddities and abnormalities are not in place. Other countries have a lot better system in place, and money is a huge part of it. The hospitals are there, but the funding isn't and many insurance programs don't cover it (or you incure a penalty in the long run)
I think it is telling that the US has unproportional (IMHO) incidences of this nature compared to much of the rest of the world.

it is a combination of having guns readily available to you as well as a gross misunderstanding and lack of care about the human mind.

And seriously, society in the US is chock full of contradictions that are in itself close to split personality disorder...the expectations projected on the individual are in many cases impossible to fulfill.

 

[Wo Fat]

If there is the slightest chance that a defense counsel can make a claim of innocence by reason of insanity, they will do so. The reason being if they are successful, their client cannot be convicted of the crime. They will be sent to a hospital until such time as the state mechanism says they agree with the medical profession that the person is no longer criminally insane, and therefore no longer a danger to society.

So I personally disagree society has made a conscious decision to take mentally ill persons and stash them away in jails. Can you argue that some, or even many, who are in prisons are mentally ill? Not without a pretty broad definition of mental illness. But even if we assume that is true, what is the solution? Should we not then force them into treatment? Who wants to wait until the next massacre without a solution?

All you have to do is visit a state prison for a length of time to see and know that many, if not most of the violent inmates are mentally ill/unstable/troubled/infirm--whatever term one wants to use. Society says that we're being "soft on crime" should we (i.e., juries, judges, prosecutors) see violent offenders as in need of psychiatric help. So instead, we convict them; lock them away with the same types of people; tag them with a very public criminal record (including their known pathologies); and make dang sure that they are never ever allowed to legally own a gun.

A gun control byproduct that many seem to be just fine with.

 

[granfire]

All you have to do is visit a state prison for a length of time to see and know that many, if not most of the violent inmates are mentally ill/unstable/troubled/infirm--whatever term one wants to use. Society says that we're being "soft on crime" should we (i.e., juries, judges, prosecutors) see violent offenders as in need of psychiatric help. So instead, we convict them; lock them away with the same types of people; tag them with a very public criminal record (including their known pathologies); and make dang sure that they are never ever allowed to legally own a gun.

A gun control byproduct that many seem to be just fine with.

considering that some of these guys should not be allowed to handle a butter knife or a fork, that is fine with me, but the wrong way to go about it.

 

[Steve]

No. There is a decision to NEGLECT the mentally ill until they become an identifiable/quantifiable problem.

Which is typically after they've been allowed to commit a crime and can then be officially dealt with as criminals.

 

[harlan]

Exactly. The only currently identifiable way to deal with the mentally ill is to criminalize them. Can't force treatment prior to a crime, although some areas are canny enough to use whatever laws are available under the aegis of 'self-harm' is possible. But here is Massachusetts, that translates to a one-3 day hospital stay, no real diagnosis, and no enforcible way to follow up.

Which is typically after they've been allowed to commit a crime and can then be officially dealt with as criminals.

 

[oftheherd1]

Just watch any of the 'locked up' shows.
They always have a section of prison with inmates that could go off at any given time, it takes 5 or more jailers to move them from one cell to another, they are moved to exercise yards like circus lions from their cages to the arena in caged pathways....there is no way in hell they are all there upstairs! And no, those people would be better served in a mental hospital under medication to even out those mood swings and anger issues, for the sake of their safety and their surroundings.

I don't know the percentages, and that is what would be needed to your comment to have real validity. And many if not all penitentaries have psychologists on staff or on contract to visit on a regular basis. Would the fact they are incarcerated be sufficient to provide a solution against their becoming mass killers?

@ MJS: I don't think though you can't define mental illness past not fitting the norm of averages. you start with the odd little habit and end up with head banging madness...

And last but not least, as pgsmith has pointed out, the mechanisms to deal with those oddities and abnormalities are not in place. Other countries have a lot better system in place, and money is a huge part of it. The hospitals are there, but the funding isn't and many insurance programs don't cover it (or you incure a penalty in the long run)
I think it is telling that the US has unproportional (IMHO) incidences of this nature compared to much of the rest of the world.

Other countries may well have better systems. Can you tell us some of the countries that do better and how they do it that might work for us?

I am not so sure we have more incidences. I think we don't pay attention to enough world news to know about all the others. I have heard about incidences through other countries news that never made the news here in the USA. At least that I was exposed to.

it is a combination of having guns readily available to you as well as a gross misunderstanding and lack of care about the human mind.

If it is, and you take away guns, will mentally ill people not use knives, machetes, or explosive vests?

And seriously, society in the US is chock full of contradictions that are in itself close to split personality disorder...the expectations projected on the individual are in many cases impossible to fulfill.

I don't experience that myself, or I don't understand what you are referring to. Could you give some examples please?

 

[Steve]

Exactly. The only currently identifiable way to deal with the mentally ill is to criminalize them. Can't force treatment prior to a crime, although some areas are canny enough to use whatever laws are available under the aegis of 'self-harm' is possible. But here is Massachusetts, that translates to a one-3 day hospital stay, no real diagnosis, and no enforcible way to follow up.

I agree. In three days, though, they can often stabilize the meds. But no one can make someone take a pill.

I hope it's clear that I, for one, don't see any easy answers. As I said before, the dillemma is that our country is grounded in the idea that people have rights and individual liberty is valued. So, in the same way that we can't force a person who has cancer to seek treatment (at all, much less to involuntarily detain him or her in a hospital throughout the course of treatment), it becomes a question of ethics when we consider forcing a mentally ill person into treatment involuntarily, particularly when they are lucid.

I do believe we can do better, but it has to start, IMO, by removing the stigma that is associated with someone seeking treatment for their mental illness. There should be no shame involved, and we have to remove that barrier. Doing just that will help.

From there, it's a matter of drawing the lines and coming up with some means to safeguard as much as possible a person's individual liberties while also protecting society while that person undergoes treatment.

 

[Steve]

If it is, and you take away guns, will mentally ill people not use knives, machetes, or explosive vests?

I think you're perfectly entitled to your opinions, but this in particular is a point that I've heard before and I think it's a specious question. The root of it seems to be, if someone wants to kill people, they will kill people. Sure. I get that.

But, how easy we make it and how much damage can be done is something we have some control over. Had Holmes been armed with a machete, I don't think that he would have been able to kill 13 and wound another 50 or so. Even a knife in one hand and a machete in the other, he would have had trouble getting to 70 people. Even Conan the Barbarian, armed with a giant, two handed sword would have had trouble doing that.

AND, if his access to guns was restricted such that he had to resort to blades of some kind, it strengthens the position of gun advocates in that a (presumably sane), lawful gun owner would have a clear upper hand.

 

[oftheherd1]

...

I do believe we can do better, but it has to start, IMO, by removing the stigma that is associated with someone seeking treatment for their mental illness. There should be no shame involved, and we have to remove that barrier. Doing just that will help.

From there, it's a matter of drawing the lines and coming up with some means to safeguard as much as possible a person's individual liberties while also protecting society while that person undergoes treatment.

OK, that's a start for sure. But you can't legislate that, so we have to find some way to change attitudes. As good an idea as I think that is, I also think that would take longer than we can afford in trying to fix the problem. Do you have an idea how we might speed that up?

 

[granfire]

I don't know the percentages, and that is what would be needed to your comment to have real validity. And many if not all penitentaries have psychologists on staff or on contract to visit on a regular basis. Would the fact they are incarcerated be sufficient to provide a solution against their becoming mass killers?




Other countries may well have better systems. Can you tell us some of the countries that do better and how they do it that might work for us?

I am not so sure we have more incidences. I think we don't pay attention to enough world news to know about all the others. I have heard about incidences through other countries news that never made the news here in the USA. At least that I was exposed to.



If it is, and you take away guns, will mentally ill people not use knives, machetes, or explosive vests?



I don't experience that myself, or I don't understand what you are referring to. Could you give some examples please?

aight, look around. Pull up the news of people gone postal. The majorities of all cases are in the US. Can you deny that?

The part of the system that you don't see: It's called health care. It starts with the financial coverage <GASP, I know> that is much better in nearly all industrial nations than the US.
As to getting it to work for you...ok, I admit, my evidence is anecdotal, stories from people who have grievances when they can't get the help needed for their family members. Plus some methods in the US are still archaic. I am not going to bore you with details, but straight jackets are not in the arsenal in other countries....

You wanted evidence that mentally unstable people are warehoused in jails, I pointed you at one of many TV shows that clearly show it. Clear enough for the layman to see it. Numbers? Ask your department of correction for them. But I am not sure if they even have them. They might have psychologists on staff, but a psychiatrist is needed. And yes, though both start with psy, it's a huge difference.


As to the society and it's shortfalls...I suppose you have to step outside of it to see it....


Lets start with the legal age of certain things: If it is alright for a 13 year old child to be handles like an adult in front of a judge, it in turn ought to be quiet alright to give this 'adult' a beer and a smoke. Does that illustrate it enough for you>

The American man has to be tough and masculine, lest he be judged 'gay' but we also have really no outlets for them anymore. I am guessing that is one reason the shoot'em up games are so popular, a guy can do the stuff they seem to be biologically wired for. Values we still embrace, but can't condone in a social context. (not even going into the disconnect of playing adrenalin inducing games while our behinds are parked on the couch...)

Oh, and men are more likely to snap or have mental 'abnormalities' than women...


As to the weapons at hand....I am sure you can kill 12 people with a machete, but can you do so, injure 58 others all in a couple of minutes, without breaking a sweat?

And to have an explosive vest, you have to have explosives....and those are regulated or ought to be, even more than guns...and guess what, they want to regulate purchases of fertilizer....