Posted by Squiggles on December 4, 2005, at 6:39:30 [reposted on December 4, 2005, at 15:49:42 | original URL]
In reply to Crime, mental illness, anti-psychiatry..., posted by med_empowered on December 4, 2005, at 5:17:00
> hi! OK, this is probably the only point we really, strongly disagree on.
I take it you agree about the causality of
mental illness, then.Sociologists have long disavowed a strong link between "crime" and "mental illness".
Well, I've been doing some search on this topic
and it does not seem to be the case; to the
contrary a link is seen for a number of reasons.
And the irony of it all, is that personal
liberties are better protected by recognizing
this link, than denying it. So, that a woman
who kills her children in post-partum depression
is seen as not guilty by reason of insanity.
Whereas, the contrary libertarian/individualist
interpretation would result in a life sentence
if not death sentence in Texas.I found an interesting article on this
in Health Canada:http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ncfv-cnivf/familyviolence/html/fvstereotype_e.html
First of all, you have to define crime.
That is not difficult -- just look the
CODE.Crime is usually defined by the ruling class, in a method which protects their own interests. So...robbing a convenience store is armed robbery (in my state in the US, thats 7 years minimum in prison), even though the take is small and the company has adequate insurance to cover losses. Now, a corporation that say, produces asbestos or cigarettes or...Vioxx is usually only subject to *civil*, not *criminal* penalties, even when and if individuals in the chain of command repsonsible for the mis-deeds can be identified. Also notice that white-collar crime tends to be identified less often, prosecuted less vigorously, and results in fewer and shorter prison terms. Thus, the "crime" of the underclass is generally seen as more severe than the "crime" of the upper-classes.
I don't think the law discriminates between
a manic-depressive enterpreneur who embezzles
thousands of pensioners' funds, and a peti-thief
who robs a Seven-Eleven. Though, I grant you that
the popular attitude is not the same as that
of the law.
>
> Perhaps most importantly, its worth noting that psychiatric treatment doesn't reduce crime. Neuroleptics, which were designed to tranquilize and calm people, can actually induce both suicidality and interpersonal violence. Antidepressants can as well. Even lobotomies, which were the ultimate "treatment" to create docility, can actually create problems by destroying a sense of proper social behavior and self-restraint.Neuroleptics and lobotomies are not common
anymore. Drugs are improving and actually
making mentally ill people better and more
stable. There are problems with staying on
drugs which are intolerable and that can lead
to emotional turmoil and crime. But here the
problem is not with drugs, but with bad drugs.
That does not imply that NO drugs are better
or result in less crime.
>
> Again...back to the sociologists. Crime tends to be *functional*, not *dysfunctional*--Durkheim said "even in a society of saints, there would still be sinners". Crime helps define and re-define what is good/bad, acceptable/unacceptable within a certain society. Even schizophrenia isn't associated with a high crime rate; even E. Fuller Torrey points that out in his biopsychiatric orthodox tome, "Surviving Schizophrenia". Just about any mental health handout always informs the readers: crazy does not always equal dangerous.
>When speaking about crime and mental illness,
I was referring to despair and anguish which
results within our culture, and in so, within
our social values. I do not know of too many
societies which have presently maintained
an anarchic state, so we do share more or less
the same definition of what is good and bad
in our world.
> As for the anti-psychiatry intellectuals..they're pretty interesting. Foucault did a lot of social theory work, much of which is utterly fascinating and (I think) insightful. Szasz has his own libertarian agenda to push which I disagree with, but he does hit on some important points, especially in "The Myth Of Mental Illness" The later stuff is more of a mixed bag.I don't find them interesting at all.
>
> Laing, interestingly, was never really anti-psychiatry. He RX'd medications and had patients who were both medicated and unmedicated. HIs whole contribution was viewing mental illness as at least partly a coping mechanism (an act of sanity and defiance in an uncaring, essentially insane world). Plus, he analyzed psychosis for content, trying to glean information that could prove helpfulto the patient and to society at large. His work is striking because it is so *inquisitive* and *value-free*; he never really passed judgement on the nature of mental illness or anything else...he was just really curious. Foucault also didn't really care to break down the origins of deviant behavior; his main concern was how the behavior was dealt with in a society, which is where the "medicalization of deviance" model came from.I actually saw Laing when I was an undergraduate
at my university. I still have photos of the
lecture, hee. I thought he was good poet.
When I studied Psychology I did not consider
him to be a psychologist.
>
> Now, for the involuntary treament issue...I dont know how the law is in canda, but here in the US..."preventitive detention" for *crimes* is flat out illegal/uncontitutional. If a guy looks shifty-eyes and you think he might climb up on a water tower and open fire, the police can certainly watch him, but they can't arrest/detain him b/c of what he *might* do. Why should one apply a different standard to the mentally ill?I am not sure what you mean here.
Plus, its worth noting that when harm is done in mental illness, it is usually to the self...although you seem to imply that schizophrenics and bipolars are more likely than unipolar depressives to hurt others, the indication is really that suicide is *huge* within schizophrenia (15%) and bipolar (20%), while the interpersonal violent crime rate isn't much different than that found in similarly matched controls (if you control for sex, race, age, socio-economic status, etc.).
Suicide may be common in all sorts of mental
illness -- it is so horrible to be in that state
that whatever its variation, escaping it is
the only way out, if you are not medicated.
The difference between unipolar, and bipolar
and schizophrenia, is the aggressive tendency
in the manic phase, and the persecutory states
in schizophrenia. I think a lot of mentally
ill people just suffer through these conditions,
but the ones who do commit crimes, are not in
a sane state. I don't see why anyone would
prefer to treat ill people as if they were free
to be ill rather than give them medication.
That does not make sense to me at all.
Squiggles
poster:Squiggles
thread:585420
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20051121/msgs/585421.html