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'm kinda bored and it's a slow news day. Let's do "jail the crazies".
Plus there was that Canadian citizen who was blocked from air travel through a US airport (wasn't even stopping in the US) just because Canadian law enforcement had passed on to US Customs and Border Protection information about an mental illness related interaction she had with the Canadian police.
There's some deep issues here.
It is my understanding that you get punished once for being a criminal. With a so called diagnosis associated with you for whatever reason, sensible or not, that type of personal information probably be used against you for life.
Apropos of nothing, let me ask a question.
Can people be cured of mental health problems?
I recall a study comparing the rates of people getting off drugs while on psychotherapy with those getting off drugs on their own.
I also recall a study where completely sane people were checked into a mental institution (under a false name, as a test case) with instructions to pretend symptoms for awhile, but then pretend to be completely cured. Their status was never set to "cured", rather it was "condition, under remission".
So have there been any studies showing that mental health treatment is effective, or is psychotherapy more akin to lie detectors and phrenology?
(A related question, is there good sensitivity between the various mental health diagnoses with different treatments? Meaning, if the condition A treatment is different from condition B, is there a sharp, easily-recognized distinction between the symptoms for A and B?)
I've read that statistically, schizophrenics are more likely to be victims of violence, from people who misunderstand their behavior (stand your ground *cough*) than to commit violence...
So, who should be locked up?
(too early in the damn morning to try and look up a cite.)
Are we responsible for the crimes we commit? If we are mentally ill, then surely we're not responsible. And if we're not responsible, then surely we need to have another "protected class" of people defined to prevent harassment, discrimination and unjust punishment. What they are attempting to do is reduce and even remove freedoms and rights which are both natural and constitutionally guaranteed. I'm not going to say that mentally unstable people should have access to dangerous things such as cars, knives, heavy bludgeoning devices and especially not firearms. If someone is indeed a "danger to society" we need to be serious about it -- very serious and very consistent. To deny someone their rights such as the right to self defense while at the same time not affording them appropriate protections under the law to compensate creates an extremely unfair situation.
I do not think that having mental problems in Great Britain is a good idea: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2516270/Pregnant-woman-unborn-baby-girl-forcibly-removed-caesarean-social-workers-obtain-court-order-suffered-mental-breakdown.html
They've sent her to the hospital, drugged her, cut her baby out of her and gave away the baby of this italian mother for adoption in the UK because even though she is on medication and made a full recovery she might one day have mental problems again. The baby will not even grow up in italy.
Just wow.
"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.
Ah, yes, Comrade! Those of us true to the Collective have always known that the Hooligans and Reactionaries had something wrong in their heads! Probably from a vodka deficiency or something.
I, for one, welcome this! It's time we lock away all the dissidents until they learn to love Big Brother -- er, I mean, Dear Leader.
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
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
I spent 25 years in the mental health system regarded as a seriously bipolar person. Turns out it was caffeine and to a lesser extent chocolate and a host of medicines that was causing the effect. I've been 5.5 years now symptom free. Never forget to eliminate environmental causes for mental and physical health issues!
As someone with major mental illness who also spent time in gaol for a heinous crime, this is a terribly thorny issue. Due to the trend of "community based care", many patients stuff up their meds, and so end up committing crimes. As there is a lack of proper care facilities, we end up incarcerated in prison. This is a hell of a scary place for anyone, let alone someone with mental illness. Prison Mental Health is a joke, as it concentrates on the use of Seroquel for behaviour management, and there is absolutely no focus on life skills or therapy. Furthemore, prison officers are not mental health nurses, yet in the facility I was incarcerated in, about 2/3 of inmates were on psych meds.
In many respects, the old 19th century model of asylums (i.e. secured hospitals) could well be a better way to reduce recidivism, and to help patients learn to manage their disease and life. Prison certainly doesn't help - I came out more unstable than when I went in, as well as being traumatised by the rapes, stabbings and suicides.
Yes, prison is a consequence of action, but for those who commit a crime when unwell, but fail the test for diminished responsibility (it can be hard to prove you didn't know you were doing wrong, let alone deal with how you might know that society/law judges your actions wrong, but due to delusional thinking you think you're justified in your actions) it usually only makes things much worse. Hence the suicide rate in prison and amongst parolees.
The definition is largely "do you know that what you did was wrong."... So if a talking banana told you to do it, it doesn't really matter. You knew it was wrong and chose to do it anyway. You should have ignored the talking banana.
"I did ignore it, but then it produced a National Security letter saying I had to do it and that I wasn't allowed to tell anybody."
"I see. Case dismissed."
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 !
One thing that the BBC article highlights for me, is the need for police training in this area. I believe that most police officers lock up a mentally ill person because they don't know what else to do with them. Giving the police basic mental illness triage training would make both the mentally ill and the officers lives easier.