Slashdot Mirror
A Review of the "Mental Illness" Definition Might Prevent Crime
An anonymous reader writes "Following a BBC report showing abnormal variation in the number of people taken into police custody with mental health problems, concerns have been raised about the legal definition of "mental illness". Prof. Steve Fuller argues that a much sharper legal distinction is required to ensure criminals with mental disorders are not released without appropriate treatment. Fuller distinguishes between two cases: a 'client', who pays a therapist and enjoys a liberal, level-playing field in face-to-face interactions, and a 'patient' who is being treated by a doctor for a particular disorder. If the former relationship cannot be established due to person's mental state, then the latter one should be enforced. Thus, Fuller calls for 'a return to institutions analogous to the asylums of the early 19th century.'"
Need more mental health centers not prisons with 23/7 lock down
...who decides. We've all exhibited behavior at one time or another that could be interpreted as antisocial, and with our paycheck-to-paycheck lifestyle and less institutional family connections, it's very possible that someone involuntarily committed may find literally all of their worldly possessions gone when they come out. Such involuntary confinement could be used when someone in authority finds something otherwise noncriminal to be abhorrent. There are numerous examples of countercultures throughout our fairly recent history that were investigated by the authorities, and it was bad enough without those people having to particularly worry about involuntary confinement attributed to supposed mental illness.
Who decides, what they can compel, and how that person's life is managed while they're institutionalized are all very, very important factors in if it's even possible to use involuntary medical-based confinement or not.
And that doesn't even begin to address costs. While I don't care for it, it's possible for prisons to get some return on their costs by using prison labor to do things that don't really pay the prisoners but do pay the prison. If someone's committed for what's supposed to be a mental illness problem, it's doubtful that using that person for profit for the institution would really be possible.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Until it is you being put away, Mr. Coward.
I think Prof. Fuller should be in therapy. If he disagrees, it must be because he's "not in the appropriate mental state to operate in such a relationship", in which case his need for treatment "may need to be legally enforced.”
"Preventing" crimes is not justice. Locking up innocents to "prevent" them from committing crimes is essentially the opposite of justice.
Also, note what they're preventing: "crimes". Not violence or any action that harms anyone. "Crimes" encompasses all manner of disobedience toward authority, regardless of whether that authority is legitimate. Example: Man faces felony charge over trimming shrubs. Not a crime: DEA locks up a student, forgets about him for 4 days with no food or water.
I, unfortunately, have had far too much exposure to the mental health system, due to mental illness in my immediate family. I'll give you my perspective on your questions, based primarily on my anecdotal experience, plus some research-based discussions with practitioners.
I think the answer is a qualified yes, people can be made better, though "cured" may be too strong.
Mental health treatment is, I think, much where medicine was shortly after the discovery of the germ theory of disease. It's beginning to become a capable, scientific endeavor, and it is very useful within the areas that it works, but there's lots we don't understand, about what goes wrong, about why it goes wrong, about what will and won't work to fix it, and even about why the stuff that does work, works.
My daughter's condition is a good example. She has Borderline Personality Disorder (which is a really terrible, inaccurate name, and everyone knows it, but that's the label that got stuck on it). There is no cure but time; most BPD sufferers eventually achieve fairly normal functioning by their mid 30s. There are some treatments that help, though. Sometimes. The best one is a particular form of psychotherapy called Dialectical Behavioral Therapy, which is at root mindfulness training. It's effectiveness is definitely better than nothing, but whether or not it will help a person become a functional member of society is very hit or miss. My daughter's doing okay, but has real challenges.
My sister's son, on the other hand, has Bipolar Disorder. There are great meds that almost completely fix the problem for a large percentage of sufferers, including him. In addition, it appears that specific dietary restrictions can do just as much as the meds. I understand that schizophrenia is eminently treatable with medication, though the severe side effects often discourage its use.
I have ADD, and so do all three of my sons. There are very effective medications for it, but there are also learned habits that can be used to work around it. My older sons and I use the latter plus a little self-medication with caffeine. My youngest takes Concerta.
Depending on the disorder, sometime diagnoses are clear and incontrovertible, and proof of "cure" (or management) is equally incontrovertible. Sometimes it's really fuzzy. Sometimes treatment is effective and well-understood. Sometimes it isn't.
The answer, I think, is to be very clear about what we can and cannot do, and to do what we can. And, of course, to continue research into improving our ability to understand and treat.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I know, on /. we don't need to. But it seems to me that the point that the Fuller appears to be making is that the current environment (presumably in the UK where he practices) is that a very large number of people are diagnosed with "mental illness" which is fine if they are continuing to be largely functional, seeing a therapist of their choosing, etc. The problem is that when someone is arrested the question of "mental illness" has two different dimensions ... is the person legally responsible for their actions (the legal dimension) vs. is the person undergoing treatment (or has ever undergone treatment).
People who are not responsible for their actions are a tiny minority. But IF someone has been identified as not responsible for their actions, why are they left roaming the streets? That isn't fair to them or to society.
Admittedly, there is always the question of "who is to say" and that begs the question to appropriate due process (clearly, it shouldn't just be some random doctor or family member has nominated them for commitment). And clearly there were abuses in the past. I don't think Fuller is the first to notice that the current situation is arguably worse (fraction of homeless people who are seriously ill ... of course, that begs the question of whether their mental condition caused the homelessness or the other way around :).
I'm far from sure that I agree with Fuller, but the vast majority of the comments seem to be missing his core argument.
the problem is that the medical model is nowhere effective at understanding, diagnosing and treating mental disorders as the physical medicine disciplines. already many people get diagnosed and forced onto a drug therapy route, which doesn't treat the disorder, inhibits their learning, awareness and motivation to the point that they become unable to seek out effective avenues, and the psychiatrists just up or change the drugs and ignore their ineffectiveness. people get trapped in a life of legally enforced drug dependence that benefits only pharmaceutical companies. people who make suggestions like in the article believe that the medical model and standard therapies are more effective than they are. people will.get unwell, forced to take treatments that don't work for the rest of their lives, and just be a drain on the taxpayer, being unable to work, and being able to do little other than blowing their state benefits on tobacco and alcohol. the people who make such suggestions have no experience of actually being a mental patient, nor how ineffective typical medical treatment is. this is the unfortunate reality of mental health, where successful recovery happens in spite of the system, not because of it, and successful methods that are not profitable to pharmaceutical giants are seriously underfunded even when reported in the literature. end rant. sent from a mobile, so apologies for typos.
John_Chalisque
Yes, rebels without a clue that should be put away
... of the many (former )criminals in the West that have been released back to the society, some of them were released solely based on the political reasons ~ such as they were of the "under privileged group" and so on
And once they were released back to the society they commit crimes again, and again, and again
Although I've been an American citizen for more than 3 decades, as a person whose origin was not from the Western nation, I can NOT understand why on earth the Western society is more willing to put more innocent people on the harm's way than locking up those crazy fuckers?
I mean, who cares if they were from the "under-privileged groups"? Who cares if they were from "broken family" ? Who cares if they were being "abused" before they commit their crime ?
Why is the human rights of the criminals that MUCH MORE IMPORTANT than that of their victims ?
That is the ONE THING that I can never understand, despite having to live in the West since the early 1970's.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !