Is it time for a national debate on the mentally ill?
posted at 10:55 am on January 11, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
Give some credit to The New Republic. For the most part, they have eschewed the evidence-free festival of demonization the past three days after the mass murder in Tucson that left six dead and fourteen injured, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Jonathan Chait scolded those on the Left who exploited the lunacy for their own political agendas in his column yesterday (via Rick Moran), and today William Galston focuses on the actual impetus to the shooting — insanity and society’s limited ability to protect itself from it. Is it time, Galston wonders, to roll back protections given over the last few decades and go back to involuntary committals?
We are embroiled, alas, in a politicized argument about the slaughter in Tucson. While most of the charges being flung about rest on a scanty basis (at best), the most important and least contestable facts are getting lost: Jared Lee Loughner was mentally ill when he pulled the trigger, there were multiple signs of his descent into delusion over the past year, and no one did very much about it.
To be sure, the authorities at Pima Community College finally suspended him after five contacts with the police and conditioned his return on clearance from a mental health professional. Police delivered the letter of suspension to Loughner’s home and talked with him and his parents. We do not know what happened next. Perhaps his parents tried to persuade him to seek help and were rebuffed; perhaps they were reluctant to have further involvement with the authorities; perhaps they were too confused or conflicted even to try. In any event, there’s no evidence that he did receive treatment, and according to college officials, he did not attempt to return to school.
The bottom line: No one was legally responsible for taking the next step, and they might well have hit a wall if they had. According to an article in the San Francisco Chronicle, the director of the Urgent Psychiatric Care Center in Phoenix said that in the absence of specific threats, parents or authorities might well have failed to meet the tests for involuntary commitment under Arizona law, which resembles laws in most states as well. Liz Rebensdorf, a retired psychologist and an official in the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, said, “Unless there’s a crime committed, it’s very difficult to force someone into treatment.” For someone delusional who’s bent on mayhem, that’s too long to wait.
The story repeats itself, over and over. A single narrative connects the Unabomber, George Wallace shooter Arthur Bremmer, Reagan shooter John Hinckley, the Virginia Tech shooter—all mentally disturbed loners who needed to be committed and treated against their will. But the law would not permit it.
A series of laws and court rulings ended indeterminate involuntary committals for insanity in the 1970s. Civil libertarians hailed these developments as a limitation on government power over the individual, and without doubt such laws had been abused in the past. (For a rather chilling account of one such example, watch the excellent Clint Eastwood film Changeling, based on the true story of Christine Collins and the Wineville Coop Murders.) Furthermore, as a number of investigations showed at the time, those involuntarily committed did not always receive treatment for their illnesses, but were often just warehoused, with little chance of recovery or appeal of their situation.
The changes in handling the mentally ill helped put an end to those abuses — but gave rise to other problems, such as chronic homelessness. As the tragedy in Tucson shows, occasionally the new policy can lead to far greater problems and the death of innocent people. Galston uses this tragedy to consider whether we should go back to the older system, or at least take steps in that direction.
It’s a fair question, unlike some of the other nonsense that has been spouted over the last 72 hours. However, there really is no evidence that the former system would necessarily have worked to keep Loughner locked up, at least not as a certainty. We had insane people commit murders under the old system, too. The abuses that come with the older versions of commitment laws would be difficult to prevent if a doctor could keep someone locked up on his say-so without allowing for some sort of habeas corpus-like procedure that would prove that someone is a danger to others — a system we have now.
It’s not unfair to open this debate after what happened in Tucson. However, we need to know more about why Loughner wasn’t treated and wasn’t recognized as dangerous before giving government the power once again to declare citizens who have committed no crime a danger, and then lock them away for years or decades without proving it beyond a reasonable doubt.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Misspellings seldom kill 9 year old girls.
If Loughner rants on a blog or YouTube, no one cares about him, his pencil, or keyboard. When he can translate his warped vision into mass murder, it becomes a concern for others.
dedalus on January 11, 2011 at 12:25 PM
The trigger in this case was when he appeared on law enforcements radar. They admitted they had a history with him. They didn’t elaborate they mentioned pot smoking and complaints from the Community College. At this point it’s in law enforcement purview.
I can only speculate that they felt his behavior was low level activity, and nothing of a threatening nature. Although that’s not what’s being reported now. If it’s true he was making death threats to people, and it can be corroborated they dropped the ball. I am pretty sure they are allowed to press charges against someone for making death threats.
Dr Evil on January 11, 2011 at 12:27 PM
This is the liberal way. The words “right” and “wrong,” as objective concepts, mean nothing to liberals. The Cult Of Moral Equivalency has only one, and only one, Commandment: “Do whatever makes me feel good about myself.”
“Releasing” obviously incompetent people from asylumns (where they were locked up with a bunch of crazy people)? Of course that made liberals feel good about themselves.
Seeing homeless people roaming the streets? That makes liberals feel even BETTER about themselves, because it gives them endless opportunities to gnash their teeth and whine over the “greedy”, uncaring monsters who have the gall to feed their families while others scream at buildings.
The old standard for institutionalization was whether or not someone was incapable of caring for himself. And you didn’t need a wall full of degrees to make that determination. Anyone with the slightest degree of common sense knows it when he sees it, and any panel of peers can easily confirm it.
The new standard is whether an individual is “a danger to himself and others.” The only objective way to make that determination is to wait until someone is hurt or killed.
…And even that, as horrific as it is, is better than the pre-emptive method of guessing whether someone meets the liberalized definition of insanity. That determination requires a huge amount of governmental authority to properly read the tea leaves which determine when a given person’s “rhetoric” makes him a “threat.”
logis on January 11, 2011 at 12:30 PM
So is your solution to the problem to violate the Second Amendment rights of the law-abiding and thus render them completely defenceless against the much more prevalent problem of crime?
In the UK a complete handgun ban was passed. Since then, gun crime and knife crime has increased dramatically- and this is on a small island with little widespread gun ownership at the time of the ban.
Banning guns won’t make them magically disappear- it only removes them from the hands of the people who obey the law. Criminals continue to obtain guns illegally.
If Loughner had killed Giffords and that 9 year old girl with a knife, would you now be focusing in on his use of the knife and thinking of ways to restrict ownership of bladed implements?
Jay Mac on January 11, 2011 at 12:34 PM
Yeah but that’s the problem here. This guy only bought this gun 7 weeks ago. There’s no evidence he even fired a gun prior to that day or even threatened anyone with any type of weapon or assaulted anyone.
Rocks on January 11, 2011 at 12:36 PM
Re banning guns: In Mexico, Only One Gun Store But No Dearth of Violence
“…To buy a gun, clients must submit references and prove that their income is honestly earned, that their record is free of criminal charges and that their military obligations, if any, have been fulfilled with honor. They are fingerprinted and photographed. Finally, if judged worthy of owning a small-caliber weapon to protect home and hearth, they are allowed to buy just one. And a box of bullets.”
slickwillie2001 on January 11, 2011 at 12:38 PM
Every single weekend in Chicago at least 6 people are murdered and many more injured and harmed as a result of criminal action. Very little is said about it. But when a smaller number of government elitists get shot up it’s a major national catastrophe which must be dealt with immediately. Interesting.
tommyboy on January 11, 2011 at 12:44 PM
No that wouldn’t be my solution, but then neither would the status quo.
I’d read where England’s firearm death rate was lower than the US rate. Is your point that we have the right strategy for a low death rate, or that we should view the current death rate as an acceptable cost?
dedalus on January 11, 2011 at 12:44 PM
How is brain damage NOT a mental health issue?
tcn on January 11, 2011 at 12:00 PM
Autism is technically ‘brain-damage’-yet even my nice-but-left-wing PCP trusts me with a weapon because I feel guilty if I step on a bug or spray a wasp. I hate wasps.
Needless to say-If I had to use a weapon to protect me or mine and the perp got hurt… I’d feel horrible.
My point is that-NO -’brain damage’ is NOT always a mental health issue.
I may be on the autistic-spectrum-but I’m a danger to no one…unless you’re a criminal who’s trying to hurt me or my family.
annoyinglittletwerp on January 11, 2011 at 12:47 PM
I’m doubtful that there is a set of government policies that we could enact that would stop someone like Loughner. There are thousands of creepy young adults like him, most of whom eventually snap out of it.
dedalus on January 11, 2011 at 12:47 PM
Evil is an inevitability. We can ignore it, we can react to it after the fact, or we can do our level-best to prevent the damage it causes. We will never eradicate it except by an even greater evil (police state).
gryphon202 on January 11, 2011 at 12:57 PM
People say weed makes pupils a tiny bit bigger but it is mainly the bloodshot eye which is noticeable when high.
For some reason all my comments are being flagged.
Look at his eyes in the mug shot.
Dr Evil on January 11, 2011 at 1:01 PM
The first thing law enforcement would have done is check his eyes to see if they were dialated to see if he was high. His mugshot was taken in the light. Your pupils contract in light, and dilate as it gets dark so we can see in dim light.
When someone is on high, even if it is light, their eyes many times are dialated. In the case of pot they usually stay slightly dialated.
We all are busy looking at the crazy look on his face…Forest – for the Trees ect..
Dr Evil on January 11, 2011 at 1:06 PM
I sometimes wonder if people who need medication, let it run out and go on rampages are at fault, despite their mental incompetency at the time, because they let the medication run out while they were technically still sane. This is an interesting subject because a schizophrenic guy who ran out of meds murdered 2 women and beat his friend’s dad with a wrench on Christmas Day locally.
http://www.ksby.com/news/police-reports-christmas-day-murder-suspect-told-officers-he-ran-out-of-medication/
So maybe we should discuss allowing forced medication? That could get creepy, too, especially now that the government runs health care. They could conveniently medicate their political opponents to keep them sedated. Is murdering people a common side effect of schizophrenia?
NTWR on January 11, 2011 at 1:08 PM
What do you do? Commit them all? Its all good when on meds, but they are not forced fed. And they (krazy killers) seem to always go off them. Google “pushed in front of train schizophrenic” A bunch come up and thats just trains. Imagine how many people are killed or injured by other means. Does anyone keep statistics of how many people a year are killed by the metally ill? doubt it. The best we can do is stand with your back to the wall and keep away from “odd” people.
Greed on January 11, 2011 at 1:13 PM
The best we can do is stand with your back to the wall and keep away from “odd” people.
Greed on January 11, 2011 at 1:13 PM
I am unquestionably ‘odd’. When I speak to people I rarely -if ever- look at them. That’s a common trait of people with Asperger’s.
‘Odd’ DOES NOT = mentally ill or dangerous.
annoyinglittletwerp on January 11, 2011 at 1:18 PM
The only thing I can think of is to encourage parents to get their minor adolescents screened for these things before they reach the age of majority. If they wake up a couple of times in the psych ward after forgetting to take their medication, many mentally ill kids learn to keep taking their medication.
If they reach their 18th birthdays with medication and therapy as ingrained habits, society will probably have many fewer problems with them.
Sekhmet on January 11, 2011 at 1:25 PM
Yes.
Ugly on January 11, 2011 at 1:25 PM
Why are we discussing Mental Illness? Because of a photo?
Look what he used to look like and compare.
A classmate of the man accused of shooting Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords this morning describes him as “left wing” and a “pot head” in a series of posts on Twitter this afternoon.
He was apparently high when he was arrested, that’s illicit drug use – that’s not mentally ill.
Dr Evil on January 11, 2011 at 1:27 PM
The UK’s firearm death rate is lower than America’s- it always has been because of a different criminal culture. However, while the UK’s rate is rising, the US’s is falling.
The vast majority of gun deaths in the US are caused by illegally held firearms- according to the FBI 97% of firearms used against LEOs were obtained illegally. My point is that violating the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms will do nothing to harm the number of guns in the hands of criminals and will do everything to disarm the law-abiding populace and render them utterly defenceless in the face of violent, armed criminals. As a commenter has already pointed out Mexico is awash in illegally held firearms. Criminals there, or in the UK or in the US, have no problems in obtaining illegal items.
If you don’t favour the status quo what exactly do you propose?
Jay Mac on January 11, 2011 at 1:38 PM
The current law is fine. Leave it alone. It is the price we pay for our freedoms, as the father of the 9 year-old child said. If you want to lock-up insane people, you’d have to lock the entire Congress of the United States and the President. You have to be insane to want their jobs.
SC.Charlie on January 11, 2011 at 1:40 PM
What an ignorant thing to say.
Like it or not, government officials – or ‘elitists’ – have a public profile. When someone tries to assassinate an elected leader, it’s going to make news. Even more so when six other innocent people, including a nine year old, are murdered in the same attack.
You-Eh-Vee on January 11, 2011 at 1:40 PM
Despite the horror of the tragedy in Arizona, this is probably correct. When a crazed madman goes on a shooting spree, it’s very easy for people (out of sympathy for the victims) to ask “why wasn’t this person locked up? He was a menace to society!”
But what would be the alternative? Not every weirdo who flunks out of Community College or is rejected by the military becomes a mass-murderer and needs to be “locked up”–some of them might drift peacefully into oblivion for awhile, then find some interest that gives purpose to their lives and brings them into mainstream society.
If the government started locking people in mental wards for odd behavior, could they do that for political behavior they oppose, such as “birthers” or “creationists” or “global-warming deniers” or “LaRouchers”, who may seem kooky to some, but who are not dangerous nor violent? This is how the Soviet Union got rid of dissidents–declared them insane and had them locked up–does the US want to go there?
In any society, there are a few wackos like Jared Loughner and John Hinckley or the Virginia Tech shooter out there, whom nobody notices until they “crack” and go on a shooting spree. There are others who suddenly go nuts and kill their families before shooting themselves, but these are usually relegated to the back pages of local papers, unless one of the victims is famous, such as Rep. Giffords, and suddenly it becomes a political issue.
We can’t “lock up” every weirdo for odd behavior if it is not criminal, but we CAN make sure that those who do commit crimes like Jared Loughner ARE locked up, and can’t get out easily for temporary “good behavior” or cop an insanity plea. Jared Loughner deserves to have the book thrown at him and spend at least 30 years in jail–his victims deserve no less.
Steve Z on January 11, 2011 at 1:41 PM
I suppose we could do a better job treating the mentally ill, but realistically there is not a whole lot that can be done with adults — in a free society — until the ill person breaks the law. And still, such tragedies as this are very, very rare. After watching that Arizona “sheriff’s” behavior over the past 3 days, I am not inclined to give law enforcement any more power than they already have to decide who is and who is not crazy. Imagine who he would send to the nut house if he could.
The only national debate we need to have is the one that reminds people that a free society isn’t without its peril — but it sure as hell beats the alternative. I’m hearing a lot of “we need to make sure this never happens again.” We can’t “make sure” of that, and the politician/pundit who says we can is a charlatan. We have lots of those in a free society, too.
Rational Thought on January 11, 2011 at 2:18 PM
Works great as well. I hear Mexico is one of the safest countries in the world. People don’t even lock their doors at night.
angryed on January 11, 2011 at 2:28 PM
There are millions of mentally unstable people out there. We can’t just go around locking them all up because 1 of them committed this crime.
This is the price we pay for living in a free society. We’re going to have crazy people do crazy things. That’s just the way it is.
angryed on January 11, 2011 at 2:32 PM
so many excuses for things we caused ourselves. We dismantled our entire mental health care system because it was expensive and misused as a dumping ground for unwanted children and spouses. In almost all the cases of mentally disturbed people killing others (VirginaTech, Tucson, FtHood, the people were easily diagnosable. However there was no one left that could do that kind of work either routinely or for the police or the school.
Saying that this is the price of liberty is disingenuous, this is the price for being cheap asses who abandoned the mentally ill as a collective responsibility and thought that local facilities or churches would take care of them. However that never happened. This is the United States that our parents voted for, so come visit for the the scenery, stay for the murderous rampages!
Zekecorlain on January 11, 2011 at 2:40 PM
This is all that needs to be said.
I think this is funny everyone’s arguing about this one again today, but many more have hopped on the bandwagon to open the door of possibility to limiting another citizen’s rights. Of course those of you advocating such things will never realize that is what you are doing.
But you are the same people that have helped cause the slow erosion of personal liberty over the decades, all the while espousing how you ‘believe’ in the Constitution.
I find that very interesting.
For instance: how many of you think it is reasonable to remove a child from their home when social services is called bcs someone ‘suspects’ abuse of the child?
Keep in mind this happens all the time, based upon anonymous tips from any Tom, Dick or Harry off of the street. It results in children being removed from their environment (extremely scary & emotionally scarring) & not being returned for a night, a day, a week, months, perhaps longer or pemanently.
All of this without a conviction where there was a trial & evidence etc..
I had an incident resulting in my child not being returned to me until the next day, about 14 hours later.
My ex husband was supposed to pick her up from school.
He forgot.
The school locked her out.
A neighbor by the school saw her & offered for her to use the phone to call home.
She did, only we were not there, but at a friend’s, whereupon I found out when my ex showed up bcs he didn’t have the kid with him.
I tracked my child down finally 20 minutes later (I hope to God no one here has to ever go through that) to find she had been taken to a juvenile detention center.
The police would not let me talk to my daughter until I made such a scence, & only then on the phone outside the detention center, where my child was being held.
They interrogated my daughter during that time.
They interrogated me.
They interrogated my exhusband.
This was in Laramie WY, a relatively small town.
I was treated like a criminal bcs the cops thought I was some sort of child abuser bcs of a mix up in family picking a child up from school.
If you think this cannot happen in regards to people who exhibit ‘odd’ behavior that someone believes may be ‘mentally unstable’ behavior, then you live in a fantasy land.
This stuff is already happening.
Do you want it to be worse?!
Badger40 on January 11, 2011 at 2:59 PM
That is why charitable organizations seem to deal with things like this much better than govt based organizations.
I 100% agree.
IMHO you are the thread winner.
Badger40 on January 11, 2011 at 3:03 PM
At first I thought that photo of Loughner was just Ed sans glasses.
Akzed on January 11, 2011 at 3:19 PM
@Badger40 well coming from a state that has a horrible reputation for child abuse and a sad history of letting kids die in houses known (not suspected) of child abuse I’m okay with the local authorities erring on the side of caution. Saying that I have to tolerate schizophrenics because we as a society don’t want to put forth the effort to keep them monitored and medicated is really just callous disregard for the life of others and the basic social understanding that we look after our own sick.
Is this what your philosophy dictates that those that are mentally ill must suffer a life of torment and disruption because their neighbors can’t be bothered to take care of them or even pay someone else to care for them?
Zekecorlain on January 11, 2011 at 3:21 PM
If there were no liberals in our society Loughner would have been put in the funny farm long ago.
Really Right on January 11, 2011 at 3:33 PM
Badger40 on January 11, 2011 at 3:43 PM
I don’t know if murdering people is a common side effect but it is probably more common when suffering from schizophrenia than not. :) Darned voices in my head!
Seriously, I think there could be a system developed (I’m not a doctor or a computer programming expert) using something akin to a blood glucose testing meter hooked to an app which would forward info to the doctor or hospital.
The meter would test for the particular drug and whether or not it is metabolizing within the correct parameters. The meter would need to be calibrated to the patient using specific DNA markers, for instance, so they could not use someone else’s blood. This seems the least invasive method and a red flag would only go off if the meds weren’t present, the patient missed reporting 2 times, or the meds weren’t metabolizing within the accepted parameters.
Honestly, a system like this would be really helpful for a lot of drugs that need monitoring in the early stages (like high blood pressure meds). Less trips to the doctors.
Greyledge Gal on January 11, 2011 at 3:44 PM
I’m not so sure the father was referring to mental health laws. I think he was responding to that wacko sheriff’s rant and was referring to First Amendment Rights, which of course should not be tampered with. At this point we don’t know for sure that Loughner is mentally ill. His behavior has been bizarre, but we don’t know if he had been diagnosed with a mental illness.
Besides, each state law regarding involuntary commitment is different, has different standards. So which laws do you think are fine and should not be changed?
<
I do agree somewhat with what you are saying. I think the severely mentally ill have been abandoned in many respects. Some of it is for fiscal reasons. Treatment is expensive. Many mental health facilities were closed in Texas a couple years ago due to budget concerns. More and more our prisons are being used as substitutes. A mentally ill person commits a petty crime and ends up in a revolving door at the county jail or at the ER.
Some of it is because of civil right concerns, which are legitimate concerns. But why is it we take care of those elderly with Alzheimer's disease, but ignore those with severe mental illnesses? An Alzheimer's patient cannot consent to treatment, but we know that they cannot care for themselves. Every year while I was in Dallas, an person with Alzheimer's would get lost from their home and usually was found dead. We recognize that they can't tak care of themselves. Why does a civilized society allow the severely mentally ill to fend for themselves until they hurt somebody? That is not charity to them or the victims of their actions.
drflykilla on January 11, 2011 at 3:45 PM
And I never said that you a$$hat.
That is what family, neighbors & charity organizations are for.
It is not the place of the FEDERAL government to meddle with this.
State governments can feel free to deal with these problems in their own way, as many have.
And some are better than others.
I had a very good friend who committed suicide bcs she was bi-polar.
And believe me, we did everything we could do to help her.
While she was on her meds, she was ‘normal’.
During that time, she made a conscious decision to stop taking her meds.
And she divorced her husband, who was the one who helped her stay on them.
She made these decisions while she was on the medication.
It is not possible to save everyone.
We do the best we can, but these people are human beings & free citizens.
A mental ward for the unwilling is nothing but a prison.
For those like my friend, it would have been mental torture to be there.
Freedom has a price.
If you are advocating I do not care about the mentally ill, you are a major pr!ck.
Badger40 on January 11, 2011 at 3:49 PM
Your point is well recognized.
And investigations into a person’s ability to be a danger to themselves &/or society should be undertaken when behaviors provide the opportunity to do so.
As the former cop here has noted, however, those agencies responsible for identifying people in need of mental health care, have been derelict in many states.
Sound like a state issue every state needs to have a conversation about in their legislative houses.
Badger40 on January 11, 2011 at 3:52 PM
I honestly don’t know. I’m sure we’ll be hearing a lot of ideas during the coming months. It will be interesting to sort through them.
The criminal culture differences between the US and England shouldn’t be so different as to account for a 20x difference in the fire arm death rate.
dedalus on January 11, 2011 at 3:57 PM
A great idea. But treating mental illness is a tricky business. About a third of people with schizophrenia don’t respond to any medications. So the drug could be metabolizing correctly according to your test, but they still aren’t getting better for whatever reason. The two-thirds that do respond go through a trial and error process to find the right drug and dosage and that can take months or years. You’d probably need a different kind of test for every kind of antipsychotic drug.
There are antipsychotics drugs available in depot form that only have to be administered every month or so which is helpful for those that have court-ordered treatment.
It would be nice if there was a blood test for schizophrenia, but because the different types and multigenic nature of the illness, I doubt it is possible at this time.
drflykilla on January 11, 2011 at 3:57 PM
@drflykilla yeah I’m not blind to the abuses that happened in the past but there was a vast array of mental health services that are simply no longer available. In my town the last remaining treatment center for the mentally ill and the drug abusers is being shut down and the patients are now roaming the streets till they get picked up or die. This argument that we can’t treat them because it violates their rights is complete horse carp, THEY’RE SICK they need help, you don’t tell someone that can’t make proper decisions that because of their condition that you can’t treat them until they are sane enough to ask for help. Here in Oklahoma we just dumped them all in jail, apparently it’s against their rights to treat them but we can charge them for petty crimes and throw them in jail and that is totally legal.
@Badger40 I’m not sure what kind of hair brained ideas you have about treating the sick but remind me not to get ill near you since you would most likely let me die as that’s my natural right. As for saying that I lived in Wyoming you misread my comment, I said I come from a state with a sad record. What good is living free if your so delusional that you think the world is out to get you, or you cut yourself compulsively, or you start fires and burn down your family home. We are guaranteed life liberty and property, so if your mental condition precludes that you could just as easily make the argument that we have the responsibility to help them enjoy their liberty rather than loose it dying of exposure in a snowy field.
and @drflykilla makes a good point what is the difference between treating someone that is senile and treating someone that is insane or mentally ill?
Zekecorlain on January 11, 2011 at 4:04 PM
I agree completely. More citizens have to get involved to add some common sense to our mental health laws. In some states like Florida, law enforcement groups have been petitioning their legistlatures because they are on the front lines seeing the mentally ill piling up in their prisons. I think mental health courts are a good start where a mentally ill person that has gotten arrested for a minor crime is mandated treatment (in or outpatient depending on the case) instead of being sent to prison. Then you have cities like San Francisco where the homeless and mentally ill are given cash to blow on whatever they choose to medicate themselves with.
drflykilla on January 11, 2011 at 4:04 PM
OK, I just read the answer to the question that I’ve been wondering about since Sunday. The county employee is/was his mother.
Could this be why this kid was never seriously watched?
ORconservative on January 11, 2011 at 4:22 PM
If you noticed, I agreed with the Dr there.
People who are known to be incapable of caring for themselves should be helped by state agencies, preferrably the family 1st, as one HA poster here had done for their father, 2nd charities, last resort, state social agencies.
This is a state issue.
Not a federal issue.
It is up to the people of each state to decide upon how they will care for the less fortunate, including mentally ill people.
But the usurpation of citizen’s Const rights based upon poorly defined parameters is nothing short of despotism.
Badger40 on January 11, 2011 at 4:24 PM
You make very good points.
Badger40 on January 11, 2011 at 4:26 PM
@Badger40 we’ve let the local agencies and churches run things for 30 years and this is where it’s led us. They can’t perform the job and the state agencies have no directive to treat these people. It was assumed back when Reagan helped dismantle the national network of mental health that local services would spring up but the never did. The states realized they could just jail everyone and that’s what they’ve done. This is the point when the federal government steps in, when the state gov’ts have failed or been derelict in their duties we as citizens can petition or demand that federal action be taken.
I’m sorry to hear about your friend committing suicide, I’ve had a few of my friends go the same route and my aunt tried once after dropping into a dark depression. I know that there are people that you can’t save but I also know that most suicides could be prevented if the person can get treatment in time. Most people who commit suicide can be saved and if this site is dedicated to saving unborn babies, why can’t we do even more once they’re born and have problems?
Zekecorlain on January 11, 2011 at 4:29 PM
This issue seems to me, anyway, to remind us that leaving everything local without any national guidance has its downfall. I’m convinced, maybe prematurely, that the police in AZ have not developed a protocol. In LA, if you’re acting way wierd, your neighbor calls the police, they most definitely will check it out. If they agree that the behavior is bizarre, it doesn’t matter if it’s drug-oriented or mental illness, off to the state hospital mental ward you go for a 72 hour observation.
That’s imperfect, but you get a few of those holds, the police start to know you. It won’t be long before you’re in jail on the mental ward for a stay.
That, too, is imperfect. Treatment is, no doubt, not particularly useful. But at least you’re not murdering people.
AnninCA on January 11, 2011 at 4:41 PM
You mean, they gave him a pass because of her clout? I seriously doubt it.
AnninCA on January 11, 2011 at 4:42 PM
It’s a classic leftist trick to apply yesterday’s abuses to today — out of context — to keep punishing society and allowing productive citizens to be abused by the mascots of liberalism. Those severely mentally ill individuals suffer on the streets, doing the dirty work of the left. There is evidence of leftist complicity in freeing individuals who are clearly over the edge:
A libtard jerk he may be, but it was a crime to allow David Letterman to be stalked for years by a deranged woman who eventually committed suicide.
This is not the age of squalid asylums, where a troublesome wife can be committed on the word of a wealthy cheater or a child lobotomized on the whim of a dynast.
In the case of Loughner, there was a documented pattern of bizarre, frightening behavior and threats against others that were ignored, in typical liberal fashion. Enough is enough.
It’s a long reach to equate the abusive methods of the past to confining someone with a clear pattern of menace and abuse toward his fellow citizens. There should be no fear of the tools needed to protect the public and disturbed individuals after a documented history of trouble.
I think much of the reluctance I see is fear of liberals twisting everything to use such tools in a totalitarian way. Don’t fall for it. It’s no better than banning guns while making victims of predators. Much of the left’s success is in frightening reasonable people out taking action to deal with an obvious problem the left created.
Dealing with the left is another problem. It’s time to stop them and their techniques of abusing the society they hate.
Feedie on January 11, 2011 at 4:49 PM
I noted which GOPers spoke out against the Palin bashing, and which ones jumped on to suggest she’s damaged goods.
Baloney. This was an attack on people. She’s just the symbolic leader.
AnninCA on January 11, 2011 at 4:51 PM
The picture reminds me of the Heaven’s Gate cultists that committed mass suicide in San Diego, back in ’97.
Ward Cleaver on January 11, 2011 at 4:51 PM
Why make rules based on exceptions? That seems to be the recipe for a solution thats worse than the problem.
Raisedbywolves on January 11, 2011 at 4:56 PM
When you’ve missed your turn, going back is a way to continue forward.
I am so glad that this is coming to the forefront.
I will say that most of the caseworkers I know are good hard working people. It is the system, though.
For instance, we couldn’t even share information with police without a release signed by the client or unless we were ordered to by the court or it was considered an immediate emergency. But that is the problem, you have to wait for the emergency or the court to intervene first!
Here are some areas that could be changed. Most of my clients were receiving state money. Either cash assistance or disability. Others moneys included food allowances, emergency food cards, fuel assistance, housing assistance, rent reimbursements, heating allowances.. on and on. Not counting all the freebies from charities.
If an individual is getting so much for free… especially their treatment.. than I don’t think they should be allowed to dictate their services! They should have to give up the special rights they receive.. especially in the area of confidentiality.
Example: Johny often likes to run through the woods cutting himself and dreaming about killing little girls and even has shared this repeatedly with his caseworker and his free government paid for psychiatrist. One day Johny says he’s going to spend the weekend with his brother and 12 year old niece. And guess what, unless Johny says “I am going to kill my brother and his niece with this gun I have here tomorrow at 3 pm” there is no duty to inform. Johny refuses to sign a release to share information with his brother and niece so the caseworker is screwed ,,,, and so may be Johny’s brother and niece. And if he were to kill them all over the weekend… you’d read about some mentally ill “loner” going on a rampage. But.. he wasn’t a loner at all. He was involved with and “managed well” by the mental health agency and his caseworker but the public would know very little about it unless someone somewhere happened to know that. And even then, nobody is going to step up and say “Oh yeah, I was his caseworker. We all knew he wanted to kill little girls but we never thought he’d really do it. Besides, he was taking his medication (we think) and anyway, Johny refused to sign a release.
JellyToast on January 11, 2011 at 4:56 PM
Yes, I agree. Leftist ideas about psychiatry caused the pendulum to swing to far in the direction of mainstreaming the mentally ill. It’s starting to swing back toward more common sense laws, but usually changes only occur after a tragedy in that particular state. I read that AZ’s laws for involuntary commitment were some of the most progressive in the country, yet that didn’t prevent the shooting. I wonder if in this case it was a matter of lax enforcement of the laws already on the books. And I doubt Sherrif whats-his-name will cooperate much to let us find out what really happened.
drflykilla on January 11, 2011 at 5:02 PM
It’s seems the system is locked against the sane and sensible on both sides of the fence. There are as many stories of abuse of power from within the system, with no recourse for a beleaguered citizen. It is indeed systemic evil.
Feedie on January 11, 2011 at 5:05 PM
Should anyone change their position on any topic – other than mentally preparing to bull rush and/or shoot to kill any a-hat who opens fire on the public in a crowd – based on the actions of the current a-hat of interest? NO, I would think that would be counterproductive and more likely to encourage a-hat behavior in the future.
This applies equally to everybody not advocating the a-hat position.
Next question…
Unquiet on January 11, 2011 at 5:08 PM
Clarence William Dupnik. Remember that name well. You’ll be hearing it a lot in the weeks to come.
gryphon202 on January 11, 2011 at 5:08 PM
I mentioned systemic evil in another post, but far too often, we fail to hold individuals accountable, especially those given special responsibility to uphold the law.
The first order of business should be firing that moonbat sheriff.
Feedie on January 11, 2011 at 5:10 PM
If I didn’t know better, I swear this guy looks like Uncle Fester from The Addams Family sitcom.
devolvingtowardsidiocracy on January 11, 2011 at 5:11 PM
I have heard all of this garbage before. I have been to events/trainings and workshop and heard some of the most craziest things. And there sitting in the audience so many people were lapping it up. I remember where some nut case in a wheelchair was bantering on and on (and being paid a speaking fee) about “the right to be disabled!” That sounds nice at first, but what you’re thinking isn’t what he was thinking. There are people who think that the Mentally retarded and the mentally ill have a right to just be themselves. That we should abolish the word “diagnosis” that giving medications to assist and make their lives better.. putting people into treatment is akin to slavery!
Teaching some MR adult to read is forcing him to comply with “our standards” .. not his!
There is a small militant group, believe it or not, working within some of these fields. Small, yes. But they are there and are diligent with their socialist crazy agendas and many of them are getting state funding to do it.
JellyToast on January 11, 2011 at 5:12 PM
Are you serious? Happens all the time.
There are less people in our very large county than on one of your city blocks, and it happens here all the time. BTW, our sheriff is an elected Democrat.
Yoop on January 11, 2011 at 5:13 PM
It’s the same story in every sector of society. It’s always a small, loud cadre of lifetime lib activists, that tyrannize the majority who tend to the quiet hard work of civilization.
Downsizing the government spending machine would defund many of these leftist twerps for good, and they know it.
Feedie on January 11, 2011 at 5:25 PM
That was my first thought as well. I was expecting him to be holding a lightbulb in his mouth.
drflykilla on January 11, 2011 at 5:26 PM
Loughner’s defense will be mercury from the CFLs.
Feedie on January 11, 2011 at 5:31 PM
A sane article from The New Republic? That truly is a sign of the Apocalypse!
Cr4sh Dummy on January 11, 2011 at 5:39 PM
Welcome to the “out-patient” society.
NortonPete on January 11, 2011 at 5:46 PM
OH snap! Now I am completely convinced we should NOT start locking the mentally ill up. Many people think that parts of the world is out to get them, many adolescents cut on themselves- if people like Zeke are running the show they’d all be locked up!
Furthermore, we are NOT “guaranteed life liberty and property” we are guaranteed life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness! I don’t want another government agency run amok making decisions that could take the liberty of an individual based on their subjective view of what constitutes “happy” or “mentally ill” or “odd.”
NTWR on January 11, 2011 at 5:49 PM
We had a national debate on the mentally ill leading up to last November. As a result, there are now far less of them in Congress.
nico on January 11, 2011 at 6:07 PM
Ok, so involuntary committals?
Lets consider a few points.
1) We have a “innocent until proven guilty” justice system because as a nation we support a concept by which we’d rather free a criminal than imprison an innocent man.
2) Criminals are more dangerous that the mentally challenged for the most part.
3) there have been issues, abuse, and fraud in involuntary committals in the past.
So why would we propose a “guilty until proven innocent” system for the mentally ill; when we give criminals more rights and respect?
Am i wrong? Are the mentally ill worse than criminals? So bad that we’d be willing to lock sane people in asylums for years needlessly to make sure we keep them away from society?
Is this a problem that justifies giving up civil rights and freedom for security?
If so, should we end “innocent until proven guilty” and reverse it? We’d get more criminals off the street and you’d be even safer… and you’re already ok with having some innocents locked up accidentally… so why not?
gekkobear on January 11, 2011 at 6:16 PM
Mental Health Courts???? IS this to be used for determining mental illness, or to determine punishment or cupalbility of a crime committed?
Seriously?
What is this seperate but equal?
Czarina on January 11, 2011 at 6:17 PM
Right on.
Czarina on January 11, 2011 at 6:18 PM
The really FUNNY part is that the liberals who so totally screwed up the mental health care system in this country just IMPROVED the medical care delivery system.
Aren’t you relieved?
GarandFan on January 11, 2011 at 6:31 PM
Perfect!
JellyToast on January 11, 2011 at 6:45 PM
Thank you for your sympathies about my girlfriend.
She was a great human being & I miss her very much.
Your idea that govt can take care of these people better than the ‘churches’ etc have been is IMHO fatally flawed.
In so far as I know, it is GOVT (local & maybe even federal) that has created this problem.
I personally do not know the success rate of private institutions that treat mental illness.
I do know that mentally ill people are better taken care of by the people who love them the most: their family & friends.
But even this can end in failure, as with my girlfriend.
We all did everything we could to help her, but she never told anyone she was thinking about suicide.
She was always alarmingly upbeat, which was a clue & we feared that very outcome, but we couldn’t force her.
And if we would have, it would not have worked forever.
Our neighbor had a daughter who was bi-polar & killed herself.
You cannot save some of these people.
My ex bro in law, a schizophrenic, was someone who was saved: by his FAMILY. He has been on his meds & his family provides a support network that checks up on him regularly.
He is now a father.
In absence of family, I see the govt as a LAST resort.
Don’t you understand that everything govt touches, it ruins?
No govt agency is more successful than a private enterprise, as far as I am aware.
i.e. UPS vs Post Office etc.
I do want to give the govt control over these people.
That is just nuts, based on their long & lengthy track record of utter failure in everything they’ve ever tried to do.
Badger40 on January 11, 2011 at 6:56 PM
Holy crap what a typo.
Badger40 on January 11, 2011 at 6:58 PM
Oh but don’t you know that criminals that have guns would NEVER, NEVER, EVER sell them to a mentally deranged person! The progressives know this is true! Just see how well it has worked to stop North Korea and Iran from getting help developing nukes..
Oh, never mind….
csdeven on January 11, 2011 at 7:19 PM
Yeah, riiiiight Ann! Now that it is evident he is more lefty than anything there could never be any cronyism going on. Right? But you and the rest of the progressives tune would change if he were a right wing nutjob!
csdeven on January 11, 2011 at 7:22 PM
The danger, of course, is ending up like Stalinist Russia or Louisiana politics where Uncle Joe sends anyone who disagrees with his paranoid self off to Gulags for mental treatment or Louisiana politics where Earl Long gets institutionalized because his political opponents think he’s crazy for opposing them and the Long family trying to institutionalize those crazy enough to be trying to oppose and institutionalize them.
viking01 on January 11, 2011 at 7:28 PM
Truthfully, HotAir, I think it is now time for you to take this freak’s mug shot off this site, as I am having a very hard time not wanting to put my fist through the screen and send that smug smile of his sailing into next Tuesday!
pilamaye on January 11, 2011 at 7:31 PM
I’ll second that. Knowing the mugshot is being broadcast is part of Loughner’s thrill.
viking01 on January 11, 2011 at 7:38 PM
With so many getting labeled with some sort of mental illness, ADHD, depression, birther, global warming denier, homo-phobic, paranoid clinger, religious, conservative…..just wait, give the government the power to take away more and more of your rights based on mental illness and just about anyone that disagrees with government will get tagged as mentally ill, there are plenty of left wing livy league think tanks ready to provide studies that this or that is actually a result of mental illness.
flyfishingdad on January 11, 2011 at 7:58 PM
That’s the honest fear.
the_nile on January 11, 2011 at 8:01 PM
Wouldn’t you like to be a fly on the wall, watching that cute smirk disappear, when this fragile little ego gets shown the special ways of prison life?
ndanielson on January 11, 2011 at 8:21 PM
What’s to debate? Develop a test for potential violent behavior in nut cases, test them, and lock them up if they don’t pass it… preferably in NY or California, so they’ll be among their own kind.
n0doz on January 11, 2011 at 8:53 PM
Oh yeah, right. We’re going to be able to predict criminal behavior based on some bureaucratic sliding scale of mental “health”.
If we were actually serious about prevention, we would focus on justice.
Saltysam on January 11, 2011 at 8:59 PM
Most would be surprised at how many levels of derangement a hanging at the courthouse can penetrate. Do that to the worst offenders and 95% of the other crap will stop.
Feedie on January 11, 2011 at 9:57 PM
I think that creepy picture was shown every 5 seconds last night and probably contributed to some sleepless nights.
Does anybody ever wonder where the line between psycho and celebrity cross? I mean, there’s some nutjob out there right now saying if I do something like this i’ll be famous too.
Wagthatdog on January 11, 2011 at 10:02 PM
Via Tammy Bruce:
Feedie on January 11, 2011 at 10:14 PM
The thought that we, as a country, will engage in a national debate concerning mental health sends shivers up my spine; especially when I hear some of those wanting this national conversation commiserate about the difficulties of involuntarily committing individuals who are “suspected” of having mental health problems. My life’s experiences and gut tell me nothing good can come of this and individual rights and freedoms will be diminished if any new laws are passed.
devolvingtowardsidiocracy on January 11, 2011 at 10:17 PM
The last thing that happens in America’s courtrooms is the search for justice, or truth, for that matter; it is all about winning and losing.
devolvingtowardsidiocracy on January 11, 2011 at 10:22 PM
He reminds me of a younger version of Blofeld.
Bigfoot on January 11, 2011 at 11:11 PM
Insanity has been dumbed down to where a liberal in Congress is deemed normal. I get your point, though. Everyone is spouting mental illness and schizophrenia, but the guy was organized enough to carry out a heinous crime. It makes me wonder if he’d have done it if murderers were predictably executed at the court house.
Constitutional Amendment:
No new legislation related to infamous crimes shall be passed within 6 months of the occurrence.
Feedie on January 12, 2011 at 12:09 AM
Wow! He could have been Morman Bates without the wig!!!!
shorebird on January 12, 2011 at 1:05 AM
Liz Rebensdorf, a retired psychologist and an official in the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, said, “Unless there’s a crime committed, it’s very difficult to force someone into treatment.” For someone delusional who’s bent on mayhem, that’s too long to wait.
According to Arizona law she is incorrect. She is misreading the law. I spent 25 years as a Mental Health Professional tasked with implementing the involuntary detention law in Washington and Idaho. The law there is the same as in Ariona. I never told any institution be it medical, family, schools, or law enforcement that I couldn’t do anything because the law hadn’t been broken. I would never be able to sleep through the night thinking, “oh well, a law wasn’t broken, nothing bad will happen.” It is total BS to hide behind that misinterpretation of the law, and what is best for the person and the community in terms of safety.
The school and law enforcement could have asked for an MHP to evaluate Laughner, not just tell him or family they need to seek voluntary treatment. It is ludicrous to expect someone in a psychotic state to walk in to a mental health center or a psychiatrists office and say, “Hi, I’m delusional and need help.”
rlwo2008 on January 12, 2011 at 11:03 AM
Isn’t there a middle way? Confinement should certainly be back on the table for intractable disease, but stabilization, then supervision and forced medication (or confinement for those who won’t or can’t comply). The law should recognize schizophrenia as a disease that results in incompetence to manage one’s own affairs without input from a guardian or next friend.
The new mental hospitals are jail and prison, and it’s rarely a therapeutic environment. Only the cheapest “dinosaur” treatments with the most side effects are used if there is any treatment at all. Mainly that treatment is to keep the inmate from being aggressive and dangerous, not to mitigate or improve the disease or the benefit of the inmate.
Do you think it’s humane to let the ones family and society necessarily cast off languish under bridges or flop houses, unmedicated, unsupervised?
I don’t.
Due process and review ought to be a part of any confinement procedure, and a next friend assigned to any confined person.
But it should be enough that the disease is poorly managed and the person cannot handle daily living for intervention.
People out of touch with reality because of brain disease are inherently dangerous, to themselves and to others. Even the “mostly harmless” have the ability to turn on a dime in psychosis, and those who don’t may cause unending misery for those who are targeted by the aggression and hostility that accompany schizophrenia. Schizophrenics abuse drugs and alcohol to calm themselves and quiet their internal “demons” resulting from the perceptual disorders, language and thought disorders and deranged emotions. They lack of insight into their own illness – and CANNOT HELP themselves, at least not well enough to ensure consistent treament.
Society must deal with the disorder and risk of homeless people in want of
SarahW on January 12, 2011 at 12:07 PM
I think we should focus on how to handle those who are mentally ill. It makes a lot more sense to help people who may harm others, than to worry about the salt and/or transfat content in food.
Have Michelle Obama lead the charge. This is a cause that everyone can get behind as opposed to telling people what to eat.
76United on January 12, 2011 at 2:53 PM
Yup. The handle “Fester” had been given on misc. forums, comments, social media sites almost immediately after the pic appeared, so you’re not alone.
But on the question here:
“National debate” – huh? Violence-prone nuts should be tossed into nuthouses. And they were – up to about 30-40 years back. No national “debate”, “dialogue”, “conversation” needed.
whatcat on January 12, 2011 at 4:13 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2