Dear Sister, please take your lithium.

[Ruffian]

AHunter, it remains really quite simple.

Those who have proven themselves to be a threat against society have done so by committing various crimes against its members. This is indiscriminate of the mental health status of the perpetrators. I didn’t realize it would be necessary for me to go through each individiual law and specify what crimes can be defined as threatening as I believed they would be obvious.

Mainly because they are obvious.

Butchering 7 people in a library because you thought they were part of a homosexual conspiracy against you? Very bad. Rape? Bad. Beating the shit out of people? Bad. Stealing a stereo? Well, that’s not quite the same thing, is it?

If someone has proven themselves a violent threat, then society has a right to protect itself against them via whatever means prove effective. This includes enforcing the (proper) medicating of criminals whose motives were warped by mental illness.

Why is that so troubling?

[AHunter3]

Hmmph, I do seem to be missing the point, don’t I?

::kicks self::

I wrote

whom you believe to be dangerous, but who hasn’t done anything

…but you are writing about someone who has a track record of being dangerous.

Can I make a different reply instead?

OK, let’s leave psychiatric diagnoses out of it for a moment. Let’s simply consider dangerous people who have done violent and destructive things.

We charge such people with a crime, and convict them, and sentence them. Should their sentences be finite? Is it fair to the rest of us for them to get out a few years later and have the freedom to hurt people again? Maybe not, and, if not, the remedy involves changes to the legal system, perhaps laws that say sentences must be served out and not shortened.

Now, about the “criminally insane” thing. In essence, violent people avoid prosecution for their crimes by being found legally insane. The definition of the kind of “insane” that gets you off the hook for violent things that you did is NOT the “dangerous to self or others” standard that is used (wrongly and unConstitutionally, in my opinion) to commit people to involuntary treatment – think about it! If it were the same standard, any person with a psychiatric diagnosis (or capable of obtaining one after the fact) would be unprosecutable for violent crimes, since they would by definition be “dangerous”! Instead, the standard is “incapable of knowing right from wrong”.

OK, if we agree that these are the folks we are talking about–NOT people who have a history of being convicted of violent crimes who also happen to have psychiatric diagnoses, but people who have been judged to lack the ability to discern right from wrong–then I have no primary objection to the recommendation that such people SHOULD NOT BE RELEASED from psychiatric incarceration at some later point and pronounced “cured”. I’m not necessarily in favor of that, but I’m not necessarily opposed to it either.

The question there is: Is it possible that at one point in time someone (as an adult, presumably) could be so incompetent as to be unable to discern right from wrong, and yet later on be cognizant of such things and therefore able to take responsibility for their own behavior? And, if so, should they be held responsible for what they had done previously, or does behavior from that prior period “not count”?

But for Joe Blow, who happens to have a psychiatric history and happens to have a violent criminal history as well, but who is not incompetent and has not been judged to be unable to determine the different between right and wrong – this person can be held responsible in a court of law for his actions, and should not be locked up except in accordance with the same laws that would apply to anyone else.

[Ruffian]

I have become distracted by the hijack/debate that has been spurred in this thread and wanted to be sure to let you know that, if nothing else, you have my sympathies. Your sister is [severe understatement] extremely sick [/severe understatement] and I do hope that somehow she can be…uh…brought to balance. Incarceration, long-term committment, medication, whatever–it is obvious, if your post is an accurate reflection, that she brings little more than misery and confusion to those around here.

Regardless of your mother’s opinion, your niece should be removed from custody. Where is her father? Is he at all in the picture? (Of course, then it becomes a matter of whose custody she should be placed in…are there other relatives?)

I cannot begin to fathom how hideous it must be having to deal with this. I hope, for everyone’s sake (including Debbie’s), that a permanent solution providing some sort of peace will be found, soon.

Keep us updated. Sending cyberhugs your way…

[Derleth]

OK, if we agree that these are the folks we are talking about–NOT people who have a history of being convicted of violent crimes who also happen to have psychiatric diagnoses, but people who have been judged to lack the ability to discern right from wrong–then I have no primary objection to the recommendation that such people SHOULD NOT BE RELEASED from psychiatric incarceration at some later point and pronounced “cured”. I’m not necessarily in favor of that, but I’m not necessarily opposed to it either.

Exactly, except that I think that psychiatric incarceration can be replaced in some cases with the implantable pump. I wish that there were no people that needed the pump or psychiatric incarceration, but we both know that isn’t the case.

The question there is: Is it possible that at one point in time someone (as an adult, presumably) could be so incompetent as to be unable to discern right from wrong, and yet later on be cognizant of such things and therefore able to take responsibility for their own behavior? And, if so, should they be held responsible for what they had done previously, or does behavior from that prior period “not count”?

I am not a psychologist, and I can only speak for my opinions. I don’t think that Charles Manson will ever be able to realize the difference between the fantasy world he inhabits and the real world the rest of us live in. Therefore, he will never have a useful conception of right and wrong. If he ever can live in our world, with medications or without, he will be a substantially different person. He should be released if he can be proven to be no longer dangerous. That is my whole point, after all: Making dangerous people no longer dangerous, with the possible goal of helping them.

But for Joe Blow, who happens to have a psychiatric history and happens to have a violent criminal history as well, but who is not incompetent and has not been judged to be unable to determine the different between right and wrong – this person can be held responsible in a court of law for his actions, and should not be locked up except in accordance with the same laws that would apply to anyone else.

Yes, and those aren’t the people I was advocating the pump for in the first place. Joe Blow Asshole, the guy who knows that beating people up is wrong but still likes to do it, should be evaluated to see if he can be helped by medication. If he can, he has two options: Jail time in accordance with the laws of his jurisdiction; or the pump. I happen to be in favor of rather harsh jail penalites, but those penalites should go for anyone who has a conception of right and wrong.

But how about this: Sentencing a person to receive treatment isn’t a limited-time deal. As I’m sure you know, psychiatric treatment for an organic disorder is for life. So Joe Blow Asshole can choose treatment, but he has to stay on the treatment plan for as long as the psychologist says he has to. In essence, the courts have turned him over to the doctors. What’s limited is the compassion of the courts: If Joe Blow Asshole gets his doctor to remove the pump, skips treatment, and committs a crime, he’s going to jail. No more options. He can receive treatment in jail, but he’s still serving his full sentence, just like anyone else.

[AHunter3]

As long as Joe Blow asshole has the option of choosing prison time (finite sentence length, same terms as any other convicted asshole), I think that is entirely reasonable.

Regarding folks like Charles Manson, I think society (meaning we, collectively, the people) have to be able to say, sometimes, “We don’t think we can fix you, not to a level of certainty on our part that we would be comfortable with, and you are too dangerous to us to keep around”. The result could be killing him, not as punishment but to ensure our collective safety; or it could be keeping him incarcerated indefinitely, again not as punishment and ALSO not with any pretense that this incarceration constitutes “therapy” for Mr. Manson and his ilk, but, again, to ensure our collective safety.

By extension, I’m even open to the notion that our society needs to be able to respond to less flagrantly dangerously disruptive nutty people in ways designed to protect the public good; but (and this is a really big but):

? but cheek one: don’t pretend that the resultant actions are taken to “help the patient”; don’t call them “therapy”; let’s have some honesty here about the true motivation; and

? but cheek two: the mechanism for determining that someone is a dangerously disruptive nutty person from whom the rest of us need protection (at the expense of some portion of beforementioned nutty person’s freedoms) MUST be a formal one in which the individual is assumed innocent until proven guilty (or assumed to be a citizen in good standing until proven dangerous and nutty), has the opportunity to testify, present witnesses, be represented by attorney, obtain independent clinical evaluations from experts in the field; and, in particular, is protected from allegations based not on any actual behavior but on someone’s opinions of what a person might do. Behaviors that could result in one’s being determined to be a dangerous menace would have to be individually demarcated so that we would all grow up knowing what you can and cannot do (same as any other laws), without vague clauses like “making other people upset” or “annoying folks”. In other words, due process of law, with adequate protections for the individual’s freedom, with the burden of proof being on those alleging disruptive nuttiness and claiming a need for the person to be locked up or otherwise incapacitated to ensure the public good.

Reasonable?

[Derleth]

I agree with everything you’re saying (wow :)) and I’ll try to respond to your concerns:

cheek one: don’t pretend that the resultant actions are taken to “help the patient”; don’t call them “therapy”; let’s have some honesty here about the true motivation

If the person is in jail, that is punishment and should be regarded as such. Any treatment he might get in jail will be in addition to the punishment he is receiving. The line between treatment and punishment must be kept strong and distinct.

cheek two: the mechanism for determining that someone is a dangerously disruptive nutty person from whom the rest of us need protection (at the expense of some portion of beforementioned nutty person’s freedoms) MUST be a formal one in which the individual is assumed innocent until proven guilty (or assumed to be a citizen in good standing until proven dangerous and nutty), has the opportunity to testify, present witnesses, be represented by attorney, obtain independent clinical evaluations from experts in the field; and, in particular, is protected from allegations based not on any actual behavior but on someone’s opinions of what a person might do. Behaviors that could result in one’s being determined to be a dangerous menace would have to be individually demarcated so that we would all grow up knowing what you can and cannot do (same as any other laws), without vague clauses like “making other people upset” or “annoying folks”. In other words, due process of law, with adequate protections for the individual’s freedom, with the burden of proof being on those alleging disruptive nuttiness and claiming a need for the person to be locked up or otherwise incapacitated to ensure the public good.

I agree. The judge will have the opinions of competent psychologists (at least two) and the accused will be able to call witnesses. And I think that the judge should have to be an ‘educated layman’ regarding the psychology behind the incompetence hearing, so a persuasive psychologist can’t sway him with bullshit (checks and balances always). And I agree that the psychological case against him must be itemized and made public record, just like a court transcript. Same for the case for him.

And about sentencing: It’s just the same as for anyone else. Repeat offenders will not get short sentences. Sometimes they will get life, sometimes they will get executed, but the system will come down hard on repeat offenders, no matter what their mental status. And, unless the defense can come up with a damn good reason for an exception, only the first time will a person with a diagnosis have the option of skipping jail on the condition of treatment.

[AHunter3]

Hey, Great Debaters, eat your heart out! We have mutual listening and convergence on fervently defended opinion taking place in The PIT!!

Derleth, it’s been a pleasure.

[Derleth]

AHunter3, thank you for the opportunity. It was a pleasure crossing swords with you. (In the Pit, no less. This whole thread could have been a lot worse.)

Hey, maybe we can take it to Great Debates if we want a heated debate.