Forgive me if this sounds a little naïve or even trite to some. But do we even know at this time if Aaron Alexis’ mental illness was a contributing factor in his final act of violence? The FBI hasn’t even released all the details on this man yet.
Most mentally ill people (including schizophrenics–which Alexis likely was) are non-violent. Furthermore, do we really do this with other groups/statuses? Follow my logic. If an Irishman robbed a bank, would we say, Oh, well there you go. He was Irish!
I’m not denying that this may be found to be true in the future. Maybe his (apparent) mental illness was the sole cause of his act. I don’t know. But is it really appropriate at this early time?
Certainly it’s too early to make any definitive judgments, and it may nevere be possible to say with certainty what drove him. I think it’s appropriate for his mental health to be one avenue of investigation, though. It strikes me as different from postulating that one’s ethnicity predisposes a person to crime, because in the case of mental illness, it seems like there at least is a plausible mechanism by which the illness might contribute to the propensity toward violence.
Most people in general are non-violent, so I would think that the relevant question is not whether most mentally ill people are non-violent, but rather whether they are prone to violence at a rate higher than the general public. I have no idea, and I assume that that would vary according to the particular disorder.
Jim B.'s point is entirely relevant, though, not only because there’s no appreciable evidence that schizzies are, in fact, more violent than non-schizzies, but also because it’s the only damn time you do hear about us. When Joe Blow gets promoted to regional branch officer, the local newspaper doesn’t run stories about the local schizophrenic rising in the bank hierarchy. When Sue Johnson tromps all the other chess players in the international tournament, they don’t run “color” stories about how she’s a schizophrenic as well as a bookish blonde who rides her bicycle to the events.
I’m interested in the role of mental health treatment, particularly medications. We’re finding out recently that SSRIs may have some connection to violent outbursts. Have there been any recent independent studies?
If so, it could be a real problem for people who use SSRIs. It provides relief for many people, but in not sure we can take the chance of random massacres as a society.
Is there some real evidence that he was schizophrenic? I know he claimed to have been hearing voices and he appeared paranoid, but those symptoms can arise with multiple other conditions, including PTSD, bipolar disease, active or past drug abuse, and brain diseases like cancer. It’s misleading to draw conclusions from secondhand reports of symptoms.
I think it’s normal after these events for people to ask why the shooter killed all those people. For many people, it’s impossible to imagine that a sane person could commit a violent crime like this, but mental illness is an “acceptable” motivation. It’s easier to think he did this because he was crazy than it is to recognize that your nephew Joe is just as likely to crack up and shoot up an office building.
Clearly we can never know with certainty what all of the factors were and how they were weighted, I agree with Hunter that psychosis and violence are disproportionately linked in the media, so we consumers of media need be vigilent in correcting for that.
I have to admit that I assume a connection between mental illness and what could be called senseless violence, i.e., brutal attacks that aren’t motivated by either profit or revenge … unless revenge can be considered taking out your anger at the entire human race by harming random members of it. Of course, it could just be that such an act is taken as proof of mental illness, so it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. It’s also comforting to believe that no sane person could do such a thing, even if the evidence doesn’t support that. However, I do see how the stereotype would make the lives of non-violent mentally ill people much more difficult.
I wouldn’t be surprised if he was psychotic, suffering from a mood disorder, had a personality disorder, or something else. It’s certainly much easier to believe the dude did what he did because he was mentally disturbed versus he’s Teh Evil Buddhist!!!
My puzzlement isn’t over whether he was mentally ill. I’m more puzzled about what inferences we’re supposed to draw if it turns out he was. Are we supposed to conclude that quiet loners who like to play video games, study Eastern religions, have unconventional ideas/thoughts and minor infractions with the law need to be scrunitized by law enforcement? Are we supposed to target these people for special intervention programs? If we work with someone like this, are we supposed to be particularly worried about our safety? If we ARE like someone like this, should we voluntarily surrender our weapons? Sign up on a future offender registry? Seek counseling even if we’re fine with who we are?
The pro-gun folks think the solution is as simple as throwing the crazy folks in hospitals and banning them from gun purchases. But I think a whole lot of these people are very much like Alexis and just don’t see it. They would take offense at being labeled “at risk” and would likely protest if someone demanded they give up their rights based on some bullshit speculation. And I’d support them in this. Just because a dude hears voices doesn’t make them crazy and dangerous.
I’m schizophrenic, and I promise you I’m not harmful.
**
AHunter3**, I like the term “schizzie.” I may start using it. (Not that I’m trying to make light of terrible murders or mental illness or anything.)
Seriously, though, I think mental illness in general has an image problem.
I think the way to mitigate (not prevent) this is exactly the opposite of what we’re likely to do.
What we should be doing is treating mental illness as an illness rather than a failing. We should be providing the needed healthcare without making the judgements about their character. I think we would find that with proper care and a lack of social isolation it would be easier to identify those with mental illness who are a danger to themselves and others.
I agree with many other points of monstro’s, but this–
–ain’t gonna fly too far. Hearing voices is probably the most widely-identified indicator of :crazy: there is. You might as well say there’s no such thing as crazy people; you’ll be equally persuasive and effective.
Find me a person who hears voices but doesn’t know they are auditory hallucinations, and I’ll agree with you that this person is likely psychotic.
But it is possible to hear voices (or see things) and be fully aware that they are not real. I have a very time hard time calling such a self-aware person “crazy”. And given the prevalence of mental disorders, you likely know someone like this.
Admittedly “crazy” is not what we might call a specific diagnosis.
But I disagree: I think if you hear voices, or see things, even if you know they are not real, and for which there is no actual external source, it’s fair to start with the assumption “crazy.” The DSM-IV lists hallucinations as primary diagnostic criteria for a whole raft of psychotic disorders.
So when you say you have a hard time calling such a person “crazy,” is this some personal definition that you acknowledge is at odds with the DSM-IV, or some objction to “crazy?”
You are mistaken. Although there is certainly a positive correlation between experience of hallucinations and mental illness, many, many people who are perfectly sane experience occasional hallucinations (Ohayon, 2000). You are misreading the DSM. It is saying that people with certain mental illnesses are likely to experience certain types of hallucinations, not that people who experience hallucinations are likely to be mentally ill. Certain mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia, can cause hallucinations, but many other things can cause hallucinations besides mental illness.
A particular case in point is Charles Bonnett Syndrome, a quite common condition in which many people with visual impairments of a sort that lead to blindness in part of the visual field (such as macular degeneration), experience hallucinations, that are often vivid and complex, in the blind area. When people first experience this, they are often frightened that they are going crazy because the, like you, mistakenly believe that hallucinations imply mental illness. However, they are not crazy at all, and one of the main things that clinicians are advised to do in treating people with this condition is simply to reassure patents that the hallucinations are not a sign of insanity (Schultz & Meizack, 1991; Menon et al., 2003).
My elderly uncle, who has macular degeneration, has hallucinations of this sort. He is perfectly sane, and knows the hallucinations are not real.
Many other types of hallucination similarly have no particular association, or only quite a weak association, with mental illness.
I take some issue with the thrust of the OP (and some of the other commenters) however. No doubt it is true that the vast majority of people with mental illnesses are non-violent, and certainly only a vanishingly small minority of them go on killing sprees. However, I would venture to say, with some confidence, that virtually 100% of people who go on killing sprees suffer from some sort of mental illness, and that this illness played a significant causative roll in their violent behavior (whether or not they would meet the legal definition of “criminally insane”). The connection is very real and not at all fortuitous.
¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬
Menon, G.J., Rahman, I., Menon, S.J., & Dutton, G.N. (2003). Complex Visual Hallucinations in the Visually Impaired: The Charles Bonnet Syndrome. Survey of Ophthalmology, 48 (1), 58-72.
Ohayon, M.M. (2000). Prevalence of hallucinations and their pathological associations in the general population. Psychiatry Research, 97, 153-164.
Schultz, G. & Meizack, R (1991). The Charles Bonnet syndrome: ‘phantom visual images’. Perception, 20 (6), 809-825.
A crazy person is almost completely disinhibited and out of control. It is someone who is operating in their world, with their own idiosynacratic logic and understanding.
A person who has hallucinations is a person who hears or see things that don’t exist.
If I go to the doctor and say, “Hey, doc. I’m hearing some weird things that I know aren’t there. Got anything to make the racket stop?” he or she may prescribe an anti-psychotic. But unless I demonstrate some other symptoms, he or she is not going to describe me as psychotic. Or delusional. Or crazy. I know this firsthand because I have explicitly asked my psychiatrist.
You can fling “crazy” around all you want. But I personally choose to reserve that word for people who exhibit certain behaviors and beliefs. A hallucination is neither.
I have auditory and occasional fleeting visual hallucinations due to PTSD. I usually know they are hallucinations, but there are times, usually during a dissociative episode, that I don’t realize it right away. My therapist never calls me psychotic, although maybe she’s just being kind? I don’t know, but I’m not “shooting up buildings” crazy, I’m just quietly frustrated and still trying to take care of business. I was taking an anti-psychotic, Geodon, but the side effects are just awful. I was a twitching, jerking, tongue-rolling mess. In a few weeks I’ll be seeing my psychiatrist about trying something else but there’s a big chance that will have awful side effects as well.
