Comments, relating to the topic, are welcome, add a great deal to a blog, but must be in English, with no profanity, hate-filled insults, or links (unless pre-approved).




Saturday, April 21, 2007

Dangerous Mental Illness

At one time the mentally ill, who were deemed 'potentially' dangerous to themselves or others, could be incarcerated. I am sure at times that was abused by equating different with dangerous, but it's how it was when I was a child. There were mental institutes; and those who were mentally deranged (which back then there were few medications to treat) could end up in hospitals for years until a doctor decided they were safe to be out in society-- if that ever even happened.

During the Reagan years the laws changed and people who were severely mentally ill were no longer forced into hospitals unless they committed a crime. After those laws changed, we began to see people on the street who mumbled to themselves, who saw things that nobody around them saw. Being paranoid and delusional was not against the law. It does not have to be dangerous. The laws changed to where the state could not force someone, even those deemed potentially dangerous, to receive treatment unless they broke a law.

Today, the issue is struggling for a balance with which I don't think we have come to terms. It's a complex subject and not something I can address in such a short blog. How do you protect the rights of those who are mentally sick with the rights of innocent citizens? In what many would define as more primitive cultures, a person who was judged to be dangerously mentally ill could have been killed by the tribe. This might seem brutal; but the closer life gets to the edge of survival, the more individual rights take a backseat to group needs.

As cultures become more supposedly developed, they also become more sophisticated about what mental illness is. It is no longer claimed that all mental illness is possession by a demonic spirit. In the scientific age, serious mental illness is seen to be about chemistry or brain abnormality. As such, it can be treated with chemistry.

M. Scott Peck (author of The Road Less Traveled) wrote an excellent book about human evil and the hope for healing it, People of the Lie, where he described his own experiences with treating genuine evil in humans. As best I recall it (my copy is loaned out) he was not suggesting all evil was possession (I think he's written a more detailed book on just that since the one I read) but his descriptions of what he believed were cases of demonic possession are some of the most chilling I have ever read.

I know it's not popular today to believe that people, like the Virginia Tech killer, might be possessed, might not be able to be treated by therapy or chemistry, might require exorcisms, and I am not suggesting this young man was. I am no trained clinician, but one of the people there said of the man who shot him, "An evil spirit was going through that boy. I could feel it." When I saw the videos, that was my thought also. Not to suggest all evil or mental illness is possession, but some might be.

The real issue for us is a culture is not to argue over how to treat it-- whether therapy, chemistry or spiritually, but identify and pull it out of the culture until we can treat it-- if we can. Whatever the reasons are for dangerous mental illness, as things stand we seem to be waiting for it to strike rather than dealing with it as soon as we recognize it. We have wrapped all mental illness in a blanket of stigma where we seem to fear even looking at it. Is that a compassionate culture? Are we helping those who are dangerous to themselves and others when we do not demand they be treated and incarcerated when needed?

In 2005, when the teachers at Virginia Tech knew they had someone who was potentially very dangerous, there were no laws to do anything about it-- unless that person agreed. The problem is that when someone is mentally deranged can we depend on them to make a rational decision regarding treatment? If they are caught up in a paranoid, narcissistic delusion, too often they see themselves as normal and the rest of the world as the sick ones.

And if they don't want such help, in most places they can do what they choose until they finally break the law as happened in Virginia, as has happened in schools, in businesses, churches, malls, restaurants, across this nation. Dangerous, paranoid people might just sit in their homes and stew over things, but they also might become mass murderers, serial killers or suicides. They are able to do what they please until they break the law or more accurately until society catches them breaking the law. Being dangerously paranoid is no longer a criminal offense by itself.

So how do we prevent the next Virginia Tech? I am not sure we totally can, nor have we ever been able to do so, but a good start would be facing reality that some, who are mentally ill, also have the potential for violence. Most often those people, before they commit murder, have done lesser aggressive acts. We can try to put on the brakes before their deeds escalate into something horrible-- but only IF we have the fortitude to do so.

That's why I think, despite my first revulsion, that it was good that the mainstream media (and I doubt their motives were noble) showed the photos, video and words from the most recent such psychotic killer. I understand how some think it was a mistake to show; but I think it might be the kind of wake-up call we need. I think we have seen the aftermath of the violence but we cleanse it in our minds and go on as if nothing needs to change.

There need to be laws in place that will allow psychotically dangerous people, like the most recent example, to be imprisoned if that is what it takes. Force them to have treatment; and if that doesn't work, keep them incarcerated. That sounds brutal and it's why I think brutal footage was needed for Americans to see. We have gotten soft and something has to harden us up.

The argument has been voiced that seeing such footage will encourage a new mass murderer. They don't need any pictures to do that. Psychotics hear about it and they are already thinking how cool. Normal people don't see that footage as good, and those who will see it that way are already not normal by definition. They are already thinking how they'd like to attain their own warped sense of power.

Guns (not more guns nor less) won't solve this problem. There are many ways to kill. Yes, this last killer wanted to do it in a manner that let him have power over others, that let him be there to see their terror, but he could have done it many ways if he hadn't wanted to be known for his deed and also die.

The problem for us, as a people, is our own mental and emotional weakness-- the fear of not being politically correct, our unwillingness to have tough laws that face reality, our sympathy for those who are mentally ill and fighting against its stigma. To overcome this societal weakness, I think it is going to take seeing and remembering those ugly pictures and the meaningless string of words to remind us why we have to act before more innocent people pay the price for our unwillingness. Our country is so easily diverted and we can't afford to be about this issue.

Whether people such as this last killer can be helped through chemistry, hospitalization and therapy to lead normal lives, I don't know. I do think we could prevent at least some from killing-- if we have the willpower to make changes in our laws. Maybe this week even 33 lives could have been saved-- if such laws had already been in place.

(I know the last murderer's name but I think we should not repeat the names of these ruthless killers. Their names should disappear and not give them any fame at all. Let them be forgotten but let us find the strength to do what is required to stop more from being added to their list.)

10 comments:

Diane Widler Wenzel said...

How curious to post "Dangerous Mental Illness" right after "Creative Journey". There is a link. One facet of the deranged is not having a socially highly held creative outlet. In a differently structured society the people who are considered deranged would have a station where they function and never be driven to the destruction of themselves taking others with them.
The science of psychology is on the edge of having a wholistic revolutionary picture of the workings of our mind which could shake the structure of our culture and politics. Their writings are very complex to me and hard to follow. I nolonger have the books and scarcely remember them at all.But i will look them up and get back to you.

X: THC said...

Question Marks
--------------

"This didn't have to happen", Cho Seung-Hui said, after murdering thirty-two people at Virginia Tech University.

And this terrible tragedy of sons, daughters, mothers and fathers didn't have to happen, if we'd only listened.

But we never listen.

We never listen to those that are different from us- the outcasts, the lonely, the homeless, the ones that are unspoken for. We don't try to understand. We shun them and put them out of our minds because of our fear that we will become like them.

And these people become more and more lonely and alienated in their isolation.

Words like "creep", "deranged misfit" and "psycho" devalue this killer's humanity so we don't have to face how similar he is to us. Cries of "how could he have been stopped" are uttered by media quick to sensationalize and gain market share, when the words "how could he have been listened to" are never considered.

Because we don't want to listen.

We don't want to hear about loneliness and alienation when we're all so busy with our lives, making money and making friends. And the unpopular, the ones that don't fit in, the lonely ones are ignored or made fun of because we don't care to understand anything about them.

This man who clearly needed help, Cho Seung-Hui, devalued himself so much that he called himself "Question Mark".

There are more "Question Marks" out there. There are millions of them. And if we don't listen to them, they will follow the same path again and again, because people are not connecting. We are becoming more and more disconnected from each other, creating more and more "Question Marks" every day.

Most "Question Marks" don't become murderers. Some just kill themselves. Most harm no one and live just as we do, needing antidepressants to appear what we call "normal". They may be someone you know, someone you love.

This "Question Mark" was once a little boy, who cried, and smiled and loved, He wanted to fit in just like you and I. But that desire to fit in transformed itself into anger towards a society that shunned and ignored him.

How many more times will we shun and ignore the one that doesn't fit in, the one in the corner, the one that's different? When all we have to do is listen, before it's too late.

But we won't.

Thirty-two human beings who did not know Cho Seung-Hui were murdered.
They were sons, daughters, fathers and mothers, with dreams of futures that will never come and children that will never be born. The thirty-two leave behind people that love them. People that are now scarred for life by this horrible day of death.

To most of us that have not been directly involved, this tragedy will become a memory and fade like all the others that came before.

And the "Question Marks" will appear with more frequency, again and again, because we don't listen.

We never do.


---------------


http://www.x-thc.com

Anonymous said...

I like what you said in your last remark. I feel it is so sad that years after the crimes, people remember the names of the infamous - but do NOT remember any of the names of the victims.

When psychotropic drugs became available, and the mental institutions were closed, it was believed that the mentally ill could be cared for in their homes.
Well, that didn't work very well, did it? When patients didn't like the side affects, or couldn't afford the meds, or couldn't remember - they stopped their meds. Many of them are now on the streets. Until their are laws that require constant follow up on treatment, and/or locking up, if necessary - nothing will change. And none of that is probably going to happen - because that requires money. Where would it come from? And who wants to spend it like that?

Anonymous said...

Oops, sorry. There is a 'their' in there, that should be a 'there'! LOL

Anonymous said...

Sigh. How I wish that we did have answers, but in my heart of hearts, I have my doubts. It's so hard to discern from a hole in the soul to actual mental illness. I imagine his brain was no longer intact after his suicide, but it would be interesting to know if there was an actual physical brain malfunction that could be detected. Somewhere this week I heard about a study of murderers in a prison where digital brain imaging was done--and supposedly all of them had actual brain differentiation from a normal brain.

What a week this has been. One of our local high schools was on lock-down this week, and I'll admit that when I'm walking Cookie at night now I do wonder if any of the people I walk past might be a killer. But--I refuse to let fear stop me from keeping on keeping on.

You sure do tackle the tough problems, Rain. I admire that in your blogging life.

Rain Trueax said...

I completely agree we should not stay home thinking that is the way to be safe-- not from any kind of terrorist attack; but I do think we should be alert. Since the 60's, we have had a lot more of these seemingly senseless shootings and when we go out to the mall or wherever, we just need to listen to what is going on around us.

We tend to think life should be safe but in history, it rarely has been. I grew up in a time and place where it seemed to be relatively safe from random violent attacks but elsewhere in the world, it never has been.

We just need to stay alert.

Rain Trueax said...

I read something also about the link between psychiatric drugs and these violent attacks. It's hard to say whether those taking them are doing so because the violent act is looming or does it play a role in the violent act actually happening? It's worth exploring which is the case. We are such a magic pill oriented society but sometimes the pill becomes the problem.

Anonymous said...

I certainly hope parapluie is right about psychology for the sake of those with the big S imprinted on their soul (not to mention medical records). Committing those who simply fit a particular profile seems like it could be so easily abused, I don't want to think about it.
Some supporting facts: there's a 70% complete remission rate among those in 3rd world countries where only 4-5% take their medications. It doesn't take a genius to figure out asylums are absent there. What is the average lifespan in these countries? 30? A complete remission rate in the West is somewhere around 25% with a 60-70% medication compliance.(this is from the WHO website).

Rain Trueax said...

the big thing is stop having all mental illness have a stigma and look at it for what can be done. Then in treatment choices, separate out dangerous people from those who are 'different' but not dangerous to anyone. As long as we ignore most mental illness or try to make everybody medicated to be drones, we won't be able to deal with the ones we must if we want to keep them or us safe.

Anonymous said...

In the days following these senseless murders, much of the media did focus on mental illness. I formed a lot of thoughts on this and jotted it down in my blog notebook to post these thoughts when I get a chance. Which I will do. So I found your post very interesting.
I have to agree with you about allowing all the info to be given to the public. BUT my main reason for this is because I am totally against censorship. We always have the right to flip the channel. And I'll get my post done as soon as possible. My title will be, "A Slippery Slope."