Posted by Squiggles on December 4, 2005, at 16:53:24
In reply to Re: Crime, mental illness, anti-psychiatry... » Squiggles, posted by alexandra_k on December 4, 2005, at 16:31:55
> > Sociologists have long disavowed a strong link between "crime" and "mental illness".
>
> And as for the links they have found...
> If someone says they are thinking of hurting / killing someone then they are more likely to be classified as having a "mental illness".
> Sometimes... Criminal behaviours are even part of the diagnostic criteria for "mental illness" (e.g., oppositional defiance, anti-social personality)
>They are more likely to be classifed as
mentally ill? I don't know about that --
perhaps they are more likely to be
perceived as uttering a threat.> > 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.
>
> Hmm. Isn't it... guilty (she did in fact do it) but not morally responsible (no retributive justice required).I thought "moral insanity" was a concept that
left us about a hundred years ago in law.
>
> I have issues with the "mental illness defence". IMO first issue: did they do it? Second issue: will they spend their sentance in prison or in a mental institution. I don't think people should get reduced sentances in virtue of the insanity defence.I wouldn't generalize on these cases - each one
has to be judged on its own merits and evidence.
But if a person can be proved to be mentally ill,
then the sentence will vary accordingly.
>
> One man... Was sleeping... In his sleep (apparantly) he got out of bed... Drove to his x wifes house... Managed to stop through 4 traffic light intersections... Shot his wife... Drove home... Went to bed. He got off. Insanity defence. I don't think so...He could have been insane or not. Proof is
required.
>
> Same with an 'alter' committing a violent crime...
>
> But I guess most would disagree with me...An "alter"? I don;t know what that means.
>
> > 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.
>
> Well... The consequences / sentances are different are they not?In some cases that may be so - a miscarriage
of justice.
>
> > 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.
>
> That might not imply that NO drugs are better. But it might be the case that for some individuals... NO drugs are in fact better...Perhaps, it depends on the severity of the
mental illness.
> And... There is also evidence that some drugs can in fact induce violence / hostility in people who were not violent / hostile before taking the drug.Yes, I mentioned that, as in the case of
the term of withdrawal. That is more likely,
and the wrong drug.
>
> Benzodiazapines can do this, for example...The withdrawal is terrible with some, but is
not as bad as stopping a psychoactive drug
for mental illness.>
> > 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.
>
> ?
> Lost ya..That was in reference to the relativity of
what is wrong and right.
>
> > 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.
>
> ?
> Do you think this is true for all people?No.
> That without medication escape (via suicide) is the 'only way out'?
No.
> You don't think that some people manage to find their way out without medication?
I don't know of any except the testimonials
I have seen on the anti-psychiatry sites.
In the medical texts, mental illness, once
it starts is chronic, with the exception of
a few people who have cylothimea (in bipolar)
with many years intervening; but even this
illness is chronic.
>
> > The difference between unipolar, and bipolar
> > and schizophrenia, is the aggressive tendency
> > in the manic phase, and the persecutory states
> > in schizophrenia.
>
> Which version of the DSM did you find that in?It's my opinion.
>
> > 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.
>
> ?
> Who says they are ill?
> Do they think this themself or does someone else - a psychiatrist? you? - decide whether they are ill or not?Well, in that case there is nothing left to say.
Unless, someone says they are mentally ill, then
they are mentally ill and not otherwise, seems
to be what you are suggesting.
Squiggles
poster:Squiggles
thread:585420
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20051121/msgs/585446.html