THE MENTALLY ILL AND MASS MURDER
Here we go again with the mass shootings and the mental health of the
shooter. There's talk of finding ways to identify the "dangerous"
mentally ill people and get them help before they kill. As if the only
reason society should look after the mentally ill is because they pose a
deadly threat to the "sane" people. The shooter becomes "the new face
of mental illness in this country," as Brian Williams said on NBC not long ago (re Ariel Castro, kidnapper, torture, murderer).
I hate these debates because mentally ill people as a whole are LESS
violent than sane people and more likely to be victims than
perpetrators.
And because it is not possible to predict who
will become violent; no particular traits, behaviors or symptoms
correlate with violence.
And because forcing someone into treatment violates civil rights even when it would benefit the person.
And because requiring therapists to "turn in" patients who show signs
of future violence as defined by these laws would discourage people from
seeking treatment in the first place.
And because all this
surveiling, investigating, correlating, identifying, forced treatment,
denial of rights, and all the rest would require a huge bureaucracy
dedicated to social control, which is scary (and besides, we already have the NSA
for that).
And because, seriously, what is the problem here?
Preventing a very few people who cannot be identified in advance from
committing mass murders? Or the absurd number of guns in this country,
almost completely unregulated and unlimited?
Control guns not minds. Guns are controllable; minds are not.
Kathleen, you are wrong in stating that "it is not possible to predict who will become violent, no particular traits, behaviors or symptoms correlate with violence."
ReplyDeleteIn fact, research shows that there are identifiable risk factors for violence: untreated psychosis, paranoid delusions and a previous history of violence are three of them. The Navy Yard shooter was at risk for violence on all three of these counts.
It is also untrue that a great deal of invasive surveillance of everyone with a mental health problem or illness is needed to identify people with serious mental illnesses who are at risk for violence. Their risky behaviors stand out without much effort on anyone's part. The Navy Yard shooter, for example, had previously been charged more than once for dangerous behavior with guns. This should have been on his record for the police to see when they stopped him and could see that he was suffering from psychotic paranoid delusions. Instead of just waving him on, it would have been easy under present laws for the police to have taken him to hospital for a psychiatric assessment.
Involuntary treatment in hospital or with Assisted Outpatient Treatment is not a denial of rights if the person meets the assessment criteria of being a danger to self or others or deteriorating mentally or physically. It is allowable under the law and is definitely preferable to 13 people being deprived of their right to life itself. The shooter himself might have actually wanted to be helped, but no one helped him access appropriate treatment and care.
The Navy Yard shooter, the Arizona shooter, the Virginia tech shooter were all people suffering from severe mental illnesses and red flags were waving that they were at risk for violence. It is immoral for the mental health community to try to reduce stigma by distancing itself from these individuals and pretending they are not one of us..Yes, the Navy Yard shooter was one of us. Let's understand that and take responsibility for preventing these tragedies by intervening to help people at the first sign of risk instead of waiting for another shooting or other tragedy to occur and then wringing our hands about stigma.
And even for those who care only about the stigma, and not the suffering and loss of life, the only way to stop the stigma is to prevent these tragedies from occurring in the first place. It's not a choice of either gun control or appropriate treatment for people with mental illness who are at risk of being violent. We need a responsible approach to both.