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.)