Connecticut killings reopen debate on forcibly committing the mentally ill

[Mr. Shaman]

The guy at Sandy Point was mentally ill but there are loads of killers out there who have no mental problems at all.

They are greedy and as sane as you or I. They are killers and would think nothing of killing folks to get what they want.

Unfortunately you can't lock them all up. Just have to hope they come up against someone with a bigger gun and who can shoot straight.

You have it part right.

Most mass shooters are perfectly sane when they commit the crime.

Name five (o' them), and show us your proof.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Prenatal Infection Increases
Risk Of Schizophrenia

Apologies (in advance) for the "big"-words, Teabaggers....

 

[Mr. Shaman]

THE CRIME OF NON-DIAGNOSIS​

"Most death row inmates, and many other criminals, are diagnosed as having "antisocial personality disorder." But neurologist Jonathan Pincus argues that "the diagnosis of antisocial personality is inappropriate for brain-damaged and/or psychotic individuals, even for those who have committed antisocial acts."

Pincus charges that antisocial personality disorder "is not a proper medical diagnosis at all," because it suggests that no physiological disease exists, and that the crimes which have been committed should be judged morally and legally rather than medically. But Pincus argues that brain damage "clearly characterizes the extremely violent," citing a wide range of studies -- from PET and MRI scans to neurological and psychological tests -- linking violent behavior to brain damage. In addition, he notes, treatments including carbamazepine, propranalol, lithium, and hormonal therapy can often reduce violent behavior in those labeled as antisocial.

Prosecutors favor a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder, Pincus says, because it leads to punishment rather than treatment. Noting that all of the death row inmates he and his colleagues have examined have received this diagnosis, he says that "all... have [also] suffered from a combination of other diagnosable neurologic and psychiatric diseases." For such prisoners, Pincus says, "execution is not an acceptable treatment... though restraint in a prison or hospital is."

Pincus calls on fellow physicians to adequately diagnose and treat the brain dysfunctions of criminal patients, and to focus on reducing brain injury as a means of lowering the number of violent criminals in society. "This is likely to be more successful in reducing violence in America," he says, "than increasing the number of prison beds or increasing the certainty and frequency of executions."

 

[JakeStarkey]

Everyone except you, bripat, apparently.

SCOTUS could care less what you and your loony pack think.

bripat may be worried about being committed to a mental institution. He has every right to be so worried.

bripat may have any opinion on the Constitution, but since he is not an authority on its legal interpretation and operation, his opinions can be legitimately ignored.

Sorry, Fakey, but everyone has a right to an opinion about the Constitution, and if you think the Supreme Court ignores public opinion, then you are even more gullible than I previously imagined. The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution so that everyone could read it and easily understand what it says.

 

[B. Kidd]

A good many people were involuntarily institutionalized, however, the ACLU went to the Supreme Court to free them and won. We're stuck.

Yup. It happened in the 70's.
Many ended up being elected to the asylum called Congress..............

 

[Wehrwolfen]

Also..I just want to say...

It's stupid to pick on the mentally ill... it could be a drug addict, a drunken person. somebody in a bad mood, somebody who is feeling aggressive ..etc...etc...

It could apply to anybody because there is a certain acceptability of violence in the culture.

Blaming the mentally ill is just a populist cop out!


In any case, if you include a lot of common symptoms such as depression ... most people are mentally ill at some stage in their lives.

Who is picking on the mentally disturbed? The truth is that psycho-tropic drugs do not always work. In fact it's been proven that many of those drugs make the mentally ill more violent. BTW I'm not saying that all mentally ill persons are violent, however, as we have seen that the potentially violent mentally ill more than kill others. Would you say that Serial killers are mentally ill? Would you make the claim that Adam Lanza, Amy Bishop, Jared Laughner, or Holmes are mentally distrurbed? Is incarceration in a prison better than a mental institution?

 

[Caroljo]

To Shaman....too bad i can't see either of your comments......you've been blocked for a while! Lol!

 

[bripat9643]

Everyone except you, bripat, apparently.

SCOTUS could care less what you and your loony pack think.

bripat may be worried about being committed to a mental institution. He has every right to be so worried.

bripat may have any opinion on the Constitution, but since he is not an authority on its legal interpretation and operation, his opinions can be legitimately ignored.

Sorry, Fakey, but everyone has a right to an opinion about the Constitution, and if you think the Supreme Court ignores public opinion, then you are even more gullible than I previously imagined. The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution so that everyone could read it and easily understand what it says.

I can't read the Constitution? Then please quote the text of the 5th Amendment that says "except for the mentally insane."

 

[neomalthusian]

Mentally ill people can't make rational decisions, and they should be forcibly committed if it is what they need to become better.

Extremely wrong.

who decides what is rational comrade Noomi ?

I think the parent or guardian can make that choice.

Did I miss something? Was this discussion supposed to be about children?

In fact it's been proven that many of those drugs make the mentally ill more violent.

I think this needs citation because I suspect it is not accurate.

 

[JakeStarkey]

#64 above, bripat.

 

[Noomi]

The guy at Sandy Point was mentally ill but there are loads of killers out there who have no mental problems at all.

They are greedy and as sane as you or I. They are killers and would think nothing of killing folks to get what they want.

Unfortunately you can't lock them all up. Just have to hope they come up against someone with a bigger gun and who can shoot straight.

You have it part right.

Most mass shooters are perfectly sane when they commit the crime.

Name five (o' them), and show us your proof.

The Colorado shooter, I am sure, was sane at the time. Its possible he is claiming mental illness now in order to prevent the death penalty.

 

[Noomi]

Mentally ill people can't make rational decisions, and they should be forcibly committed if it is what they need to become better.

Extremely wrong.

I take it that you are perfectly okay with mentally ill people walking around, like ticking time bombs?

 

[bripat9643]

#64 above, bripat.

That post doesn't quote anything from the Constitution, douche nozzle.

Try again.

 

[bripat9643]

Mentally ill people can't make rational decisions, and they should be forcibly committed if it is what they need to become better.

Extremely wrong.

I take it that you are perfectly okay with mentally ill people walking around, like ticking time bombs?

Your assumption that the mentally ill are all violent is absurd. They have been walking around for thousands of years harming no one. Whether they should have access to firearms is another issue.

 

[Noomi]

Extremely wrong.

I take it that you are perfectly okay with mentally ill people walking around, like ticking time bombs?

Your assumption that the mentally ill are all violent is absurd. They have been walking around for thousands of years harming no one. Whether they should have access to firearms is another issue.

I am talking of those people who are severely mentally ill and refuse to take their medication. They should be locked away and only released when they become responsible for themselves.

 

[bripat9643]

I take it that you are perfectly okay with mentally ill people walking around, like ticking time bombs?

Your assumption that the mentally ill are all violent is absurd. They have been walking around for thousands of years harming no one. Whether they should have access to firearms is another issue.

I am talking of those people who are severely mentally ill and refuse to take their medication. They should be locked away and only released when they become responsible for themselves.

I don't agree. Refusing to take your medication is not a crime. Unless they commit a crime, they should be allowed to remain free just like any other citizen. In most cases the result of not taking their medication just means they can't hold down a job or function properly in society. That isn't a crime and it's not a reason to lock anyone up.

 

[Noomi]

Your assumption that the mentally ill are all violent is absurd. They have been walking around for thousands of years harming no one. Whether they should have access to firearms is another issue.

I am talking of those people who are severely mentally ill and refuse to take their medication. They should be locked away and only released when they become responsible for themselves.

I don't agree. Refusing to take your medication is not a crime. Unless they commit a crime, they should be allowed to remain free just like any other citizen. In most cases the result of not taking their medication just means they can't hold down a job or function properly in society. That isn't a crime and it's not a reason to lock anyone up.

Should a paranoid schizophrenic be allowed to walk around unmedicated?

If you are okay with that, they can all move into your neighborhood.

You are insane if you think that someone has to be killed before something is done.

 

[bripat9643]

I am talking of those people who are severely mentally ill and refuse to take their medication. They should be locked away and only released when they become responsible for themselves.

I don't agree. Refusing to take your medication is not a crime. Unless they commit a crime, they should be allowed to remain free just like any other citizen. In most cases the result of not taking their medication just means they can't hold down a job or function properly in society. That isn't a crime and it's not a reason to lock anyone up.

Should a paranoid schizophrenic be allowed to walk around unmedicated?

sure, why not? If he hasn't ever demonstrated any hostile behavior why should he be locked up?

If you are okay with that, they can all move into your neighborhood.

Since you're so eager about forcing other people to do things, how about if we lock you up and throw away the key?

You are insane if you think that someone has to be killed before something is done.

I would suggest the authorities should have to demonstrate in some way that they are a threat to the safety of others. Lacking any such demonstration, I fail to see what purpose is served by locking them up, and it would be a gross injustice. You don't seem to give a damn about justice.

 

[rdean]

Connecticut killings reopen debate on forcibly committing the mentally ill

Committing them costs money. It's why Reagan and the Republicans threw them out into the street.

At the time it was called, "deinstitutionalization" and "dismantling the welfare state". I think this was the beginning of their current policy of "Let him die".

 

[JakeStarkey]

Certain people are unable to adequately care for themselves or make competent decisions who may or may not be violent. Someone who is incompetent should be cared for in an institution. Bripat does not understand the Constitution or its role as a charter in crafting law.

I now understand why bripat does not want involuntary admission to mental institutions.