Mass Murder and the Mentally Ill -- Comments

COMMENTS

I apologize. I accidentally deleted my response to Laura Leigh's thoughtful comment on this original post. It appears to be almost impossible to retrieve a deleted post from one's blog, so I am just reproducing my comment here. I hope it's "visible" to those interested in the discussion.

Reply to Comment by Laura Leigh:

Thank you for your thoughtful remarks. You have made me think more deeply on the issues and my opinions, and I'd like to offer these comments.

First, I'm not sure the research you refer to leads to the solid conclusions you draw.  I quote from a Huff Post blog by Michael Friedman, L.M.S.W., Adjunct Prof., Columbia Univ. Schools of Social Work and Public Health:

".....People with mental illness are not likely to be violent. ..... and mass murders include acts of terrorism, mob and gang violence, and acts of revenge. Yes, some mass murders are committed by people with serious mental illness, but it is likely that most are committed by people who are not. Unfortunately, there is a dearth of research about multiple or single murders of strangers by people with psychotic conditions in the United States, but research elsewhere suggests that such events take place at a rate of 1 per 14 million population. In contrast, stranger homicide in the United States takes place at a rate of 140 per 14 million population. Obviously, stranger homicide by people with psychotic conditions is both rare and a small proportion of all such murders."

You on the other hand are looking at shooters AFTER the fact and generalizing from their mental health conditions to the mental health conditions of future shooters BEFORE the fact. (And also omitting instances that don't fit the picture, like Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook shooter, who, while eccentric, did not and probably does not now have a diagnosable mental illness.) Applying what amount to catch-and-control policies as advocated would indeed require a large-scale surveillance or social-control apparatus that would waste of a lot of money for very little benefit and would probably make a large incursion on people's civil rights -- all people, for all are POTENTIAL criminals, but on those with already diagnosed mental illnesses. (Perhaps we could simply use the data the NSA has already collected?)

Further, requiring mental health providers to immediately report anyone with psychotic/paranoid/antisocial thoughts and who mentions violence would probably keep them from visiting those providers, and/or inhibiting them from reporting those symptoms.

A key consideration here is also that the likelihood of people with mental illnesses carrying out mass violence is hugely magnified when there is co-occurring substance abuse. (As it is also for everyone, with or without a mental illness.) Perhaps that is where we should be focusing our mental health care attention and funding if we want to reduce violent crime.

I am not one of those "who care only about the stigma, and not the suffering and loss of life." Of course I do. Of course I do.I am not "on the side" of mass shooters, mentally ill or not. I am on the side that takes a cold look at the facts as we know them, and crafts public policy that is most likely to reduce mass violence. Guns and their unbelievable accessibility to anyone and everyone in this country seem to me to be a much more fruitful focus than trying to foretell the future and prevent mentally ill people from committing crimes that only a tiny percentage ever commit anyway. Leaving gun control out of the discussion is like leaving the blueberries out of the blueberry pie. The pie doesn't happen without them.

By the way, I am not opposed to involuntary treatment. Under certain clearly defined and faithfully carried out criteria, it is necessary for the protection of the person being evaluated and his/her immediate circle and larger community. But we should be very careful to spell out those circumstances and be sure there is no violation of civil liberties. We must balance protection of the many with the rights of the individual.

I speak from the perspective of individuals with mental illness because I am one and we have no real voice in this debate. We lack a place at the table. But that does not mean that I place our rights above the rights of the community. I place our rights on a par with the rights of all other individuals, as is only right.

Thank you for such thought-provoking remarks.