So I was reading the thread on the OSU Homecoming tragedy, and ran across this post that was in reference to the treatment of a schizophrenic woman who had done something similar, and is on death row.
And periodically, there are threads and outcries when one state or another executes some obviously convicted murderer “with the mind of a child.”.
It got me to wondering- just what DO we as a society do with people who aren’t able to comprehend their actions due to insufficient mental capacity or rampant mental illness?
One part of me kind of thinks that the “mad dog” treatment is probably the most humane, in that if they aren’t able to comprehend why their actions were wrong, then they’re probably likely unable to comprehend why they’re being incarcerated and punished.
On the other hand, it’s difficult to condone the idea of taking someone’s life for something that they weren’t able to comprehend, or even to deliberately punish them- punishments are usually meant to be a learning experience, and punishing people who aren’t liable to learn from it seems pointless as well.
I’m just stuck about how to handle this, even theoretically. Any ideas?
Psycho-killers like Charles Whitman and Ted Bundy are rare, rare, rare. The average mentally ill person who comes into contact with law enforcement is over-reacting to the same stressors that bug the shit out of everyone else: holding a job, finding a decent place to live, interpersonal conflict, etc. Except they act out in ways that cause the police to shoot them or lock them up for years.
Old people who have trouble feeding themselves receive meals on wheels. People with mobility issues people receive orthopedic devices and wheelchairs. If mentally ill people had this same recognition and support, things wouldn’t get to the point where the cops are called.
Generally speaking, yes…but I’m not sure how humanely you can treat someone and keep medical staff safe from their homocidal impluses. We really try to keep mental health care from looking like The Snake Pit these days, but sometimes keeping them zonked out on Haldol is the only option. But it’s arguably not humane on a long time table.
Plus, it’d be nice if we hadn’t done away with nearly all the residential mental health programs, and if we’d actually funded the community based programs that were supposed to replace them. Because what Slithy Tove says is correct. Most people with mental illness are far more likely to be the victims of violence than the perpetrators of it. But “most” isn’t all, and we’ve really got no good plan for the exceptions.
Works for me, as a person with a lurid-sounding psychiatric diagnosis. The way I look at it, our different cognitive and emotional conditions do not mean we aren’t “responsible for our actions”. (We may indeed not be, just as people who do not have a psychiatric diagnosis may be incompetent, but they are not one and the same; and most of us have intentions and reasons behind our intentions, even if we process things quite differently).
Well, I don’t think the purpose of criminal sanctions is to make the offender feel like shit.
The legimate purposes of criminal sanctions are as follows:
• deterrence — that OTHER PEOPLE, potential offenders, will take into account the possibility of sanctions and that this will deter them from committing the crime. Does deterrence work when the offender is schizophrenic or depressed or has PTSD or something? Sure — it works on the OTHER PEOPLE who are the target of deterrence.
• rehabilitation — well, the CJ system is a pitiful specimen when it comes to rehab but ignoring that for the moment, the idea is that offenders will get the social services necessary to redirect them to more socially appropriate ways of conducting their life. I don’t think much of the services offered to folks with psych diagnoses, but in all honesty they seem on par with the rehab services offered to anyone else by the CJ system so I’d say it works for psych-diagnosed criminals as well as for anyone
• incapacitation — the idea here is that OTHER PEOPLE are protected from the criminals for as long as they are held in incarcerated settings, or permanently in the case of capital punishment or incarceration for life. Here in particular, the criminal sanctions work absolutely just as well when the offender is someone with a psych diagnosis as when they lack one. Either way, they’ve been put where they can’t do more damage.
Vengeance is not a legitimate purpose of criminal justice sanctions, in my opinion; it should not be playing a role in designing corrections systems, it should be scoured from the consciousness of politicians and judges and juries, it has no place in civilized discourse. So to me it doesn’t stand out as a problem that seeking vengeance on folks with a psychiatric diagnosis is problematic because I consider it inappropriate for everyone anyway.
Ideally, we get them as much help as reasonably possible. More realistically, we do what we need to to protect everyone else, which probably means lifetime imprisonment, but in as humane a way as possible.
I agree that someone that is so sick that they can’t understand how what they’re doing is wrong, then punishing them isn’t helpful. But locking someone up isn’t just about or, possibly even not primarily about, just punishing people, but in protecting society as a whole. If someone has demonstrated that they’re a risk to public safety, the safety of the public trumps that person’s right to freedom, and they need to be kept away, and if they’re that sick, it probably means forever.
It’s unfortunate that what’s punishment for some is a means of protecting others but, then again, I’m not really sure prison is really the best way to punish a lot of criminals either.
In point of fact, Charles Whitman had a brain tumor that might have contributed to his mental state. It’s impossible to say for sure because it was only discovered after his death. Prior to his spree killing, he had seen doctors about his increasing headaches and feelings of being unable to control himself. Today, with better diagnostic tools and forty more years of research, his condition might have been treatable in some way. OR maybe not, if he didn’t have insurance or couldn’t afford an mri or couldn’t take time off work to see a therapist long-term.
The answer is better and more proactive healthcare - but also, it’s a recognition that providing better healthcare is a fundamental duty of a functioning society. Civil health, in aggregate, is a reflection of the healthcare available to individuals. Throwing the mentally ill out on the streets may shave a few dollars off the city budget but it hurts the overall wellbeing of the city’s residents.
Also, expecting hospitals to turn a profit is a fundamental misunderstanding of a hospital’s purpose. Capitalism is -a- solution, but it’s not the only solution to every problem, ever.
Jeffrey Dahmer was one such person. Robert Resslear of the FBI serial killers unit interviewed him, and wrote that “Dahmer had little insight in the reasons for his crimes.” Dahmer was sentenced to life in prison, and later killed there.
it seems to me the flip side of this is that if such people can be identified from a young age - and there’s indications that psychopaths reveal themselves by age 7 or so - would it not be in the public interest to remove them from society?
I agree that the idea of ‘punishment’ is worthless in these cases, but you can’t think of it only from the view of the “poor” killer with the diseased brain
Right. Every single human failing can be solved by the “right” drugs. :rolleyes:
Sociopaths don’t see themselves as doing anything wrong. They like what they are doing. It makes them happy, and they are the only people that matter in the world.
Sure. Give 'em enough Haldol and they’ll drool on themselves in the corner quietly instead of having homicidal impulses. Heck, give 'em enough methadone and they’ll just go to sleep sitting up at the table while they’re talking to you.
Oh, you meant, “Can’t homicidal impulses be controlled by the right drugs, without side effects, so the person can just live a normal life?” No, not reliably. Antipsychotics may work for some people and not others, or for some time and then not, even if you can convince people that the side effects are worth taking them.
If we’re talking about someone who has the insight to know their thoughts are intrusive and really wants them to go away, agrees to a treatment plan and weekly visits from a psych nurse to make sure they’re taking their medications and the thoughts aren’t coming back, and they demonstrate that they are medication compliant and the treatment regimen is working for them, that would be great. That would be a person safe to have under treatment in the community. That’s exactly how we were promised it would work when the legislators closed all the residential facilities. Problem is, no one funded it. I cannot find a single psych nurse making home visits in Chicago except those working for the VA, who can only see VA patients. I know of one home psychiatrist service, who only takes select private insurance payors. So instead I get to see them, sometimes, if they have another not-mental-health diagnosis I can bill under, and despite the fact that I’m not a psych nurse and have little idea what I’m doing with their psych stuff. Wheeeeee!
(Seriously, if anyone knows of any psych nurses that do home visits in Chicago and can bill under Medicare, please PM me with their info! I really want my patients to get better care than I can give them alone!)
Schizophrenia is treatable for most people. Modern anti-psychotics are pretty good. They might not be able to hold down a job, but they can look after themselves and are not a danger to anyone.
Of course this in Australia where someone on a disability gets enough money to live on and reasonable medical care. I have a schizophrenic relative and a nurse comes to his residence once a week to check on him and make sure he is taking his meds. Thats all provided by our medical system.
I am fairly sure if you did the maths, its cheaper to do it this way than have them homeless on the streets unmedicated and regularly taken in to ER wasting police and ER staff time.
If they are so violently insane that they are a danger to the people around them and will never be returned to society, why should the rest of us have to tolerate them sucking up our resources? The “injustice” is that the rest of us have to put up with their bullshit and pay to keep them confined in “humane” conditions.
Why do I care whether they understand why they are being punished?
Why? As you pointed out, a rabid dog doesn’t comprehend that what it is doing is wrong, but that doesn’t make it less of a threat. Typhoid Mary didn’t do anything wrong, but she was still dangerous to everyone around her.
Since when is retribution and revenge not a part of punishment?
If they can’t be cured, then treating them won’t do us any good, either. If a person is violently and incurably insane, why should it fall on us to warehouse them for the rest of their lives?
I say put them out of our misery so we can get on with our lives.