Ann Althouse pointed out an interesting statistic regarding the deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill and crime.
Deinstitutionalization played a substantial role in the dramatic increase in violent crime rates in America in the 1970s and 1980s. People who might have been hospitalized in 1950 or 1960 when they first exhibited evidence of serious mental illness today remain at large until they commit a serious felony. The criminal justice system then usually sends these mentally ill offenders to prison, not a mental hospital.
The result is a system that is bad for the mentally ill: prisons, in spite of their best efforts, are still primarily institutions of punishment, and are inferior places to treat the mentally ill. It is a bad system for felons without mental illness problems, who are sharing facilities with the mentally ill, and are understandably afraid of their unpredictability. It is a bad system for the victims of those mentally ill felons, because in 1960, a mentally ill person was much more likely to have been hospitalized before victimizing someone else. It is a bad system for the taxpayers, who foot the bill for expensive trials and long prison sentences for the headline tragedies, and hundreds of thousands of minor offenses, instead of the much less expensive commitment procedures and perhaps shorter terms of treatment.
Deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill was one of the truly remarkable public policy decisions of the 1960s and 1970s, and yet its full impact is barely recognized by most of the public. Partly this was because the changes did not happen overnight, but took place state-by-state over two decades, with no single national event. While homelessness received enormous public attention in the early 1980s, the news media’s reluctance to acknowledge the role that deinstitutionalization played in this human tragedy meant that the public safety connection was generally invisible to the general public. The solution remains unclear, but recognizing the consequences of deinstitutionalization is the first step.
Read the whole thing. It was written before the horrific event in Newtown, CT, but it still applies.
Nobody wants to see every American with issues locked up, if that were to happen we’d all be locked up. But there are ways to identify those who pose a threat to society. The inner voice in me screams to stop, because the last thing we want is more government intrusion into our lives, even if that means unleashing these lunatics on society. But how does society function when known sociopaths are allowed to walk free, while the media sensationalizes the last sociopath, only to feed into the delusions of the next sociopath? Plus, it certainly doesn’t help that so many of our lawmakers are insane.
I don’t claim to have all the answers, but I’m operating on the assumption that the dialogue in the coming days and weeks is going to be all about keeping guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, while brushing society’s sociopaths under the rug until the next unfathomable tragedy. I also don’t trust the current government enough to believe they would get the right people off the streets. So maybe we should watch what we wish for here.
Via The Other McCain


@lonelycon Try that again. the link doent link
Like or Dislike:
0
We already do that. A mental health professional who suspects that his patient may harm himself or others is already *required* to take action.
The reason we don’t institutionalize mentally ill people anymore is that there has been a revolution in psychotherapeutic medication. We have people who were diagnosed as bipolar or other mental illnesses whose illness is well controlled and they lead normal lives and even have professional careers. I know a few myself. As conservatives, we should welcome the reintegration of ill people into the private sector.
And the overwhelming majority of mentally ill people are not harmful to others.
But just like a physician can’t predict in advance when or even if one of his patients with high blood pressure will get a heart attack, a psychiatrist can’t predict in advance when or even if one of his patients will have a sudden crisis.
Patients with a good support network from family and friends do best, because they can spot when the patient isn’t doing well and needs more intervention.
The problem with this particular case, is that the mom seems to have been as weird as her son. She knew that her son had major issues–and yet she gave him access to her own guns and even took him to shooting ranges to practice his aim!
She is partly responsible for what happened here. She should never have allowed her son within a hundred feet of a gun. I wonder if her son’s doctor even knew what she was doing.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4
I have to take issue with the fact that you are pronouncing judgment very early on, here, relying on the main stream media’s reporting–after they got MUCH very wrong in early reporting. They will get more very wrong, but will keep publishing it and it will soon become ‘fact’. People have some instinct to affix blame, rather than accept that the universe is quite random and we are all at risk of people and things that we can’t possibly spot. The shooter is dead, so let’s blame his mother or a piece of iron or school security or tax cuts. The simplest fact is that this person–like many more walking around looking normal–was missing a simple human element (empathy) that keeps the rest of us from doing these things. It’s more important to learn to identify and isolate that personality defect, rather than try to control every conceivable weapon. We must stop treating the symptom (mass killings) and instead look for and control the cause. That’s going to go back to the “rights of the mentally deficient” and in that area we have a choice between protecting the egos of the ill or protecting ourselves and our kids.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
12
My comment was for Sinz54, not LC, just to clarify. And I’m not being combative, just disagreeing and cautioning…it’s early days yet, and reality will shift a great deal with “media coverage”.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4
I knew that.
Like or Dislike:
2
SNL Pays Tribute to the Sandy Hook, CT shooting with a NY City Children’s Choir singing “Silent Night”… (touching)
http://commoncts.blogspot.com/2012/12/touching-snl-pays-tribute-to.html
Like or Dislike:
1
A very good post LC; Ann Althouse is exactly correct. I’m skeptical that most progressives / liberals could pass a psych eval after witnessing recent behaviors in Michigan, Wisconsin and the Marxist hate that’s been emitting from the WH the past four years. Even the slightest verbal or written disagreements makes these people become mean, unhinged and turn violent rather quickly and I’m sure that LC will attest to this by her unprovoked and continuing vicious stalker attack mini-series. So the question I have remains: Is progressivism/liberalism a mental disorder incompatible with a free and open society? To me, everything seems to be pointing in that direction.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7
efforts in the world, they can’t help but be horrible places — they’re secure facilities full of very crazy people. You can put a coat of paint on that, but you can’t ever make them nice.
Most medications are not wildly successful. Especially antipsychotics, which control the symptoms fairly well — sometimes — but make the user feel like crap. On the outside, you can’t force people to take their meds and many don’t. And there is no useful med for personality disorder or autism spectrum.
We have no idea if the Sandy Hook shooter gave anyone sufficient reason to lock him up before the day he came unstrung. Any history of violence? We don’t know yet. We’re surely not suggesting locking up every weird kid in the country just because he gives us the jim-jams. When we get too comfy institutionalizing people on their parents say-so, horrible things happen (hello, Rosemary Kennedy).
Every course you take, there will be misery. We simply aren’t good at soothing, let alone fixing, broken brains.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6
Hm. First paragraph got snipped somehow. Snipped bit should read:
There is no good answer to this one. Mental institutions are horrible places. With the best efforts in the world…
Like or Dislike:
1
That was a very good comment, S. Weasel. And made sense even when it was snipped. In the end, any answer is going to cause some innocent person pain. it’s what happens when there’s more than one person on the planet.
Like or Dislike:
1
When the Psychiatric community decides not to allow those who cannot make valid decisions to determine if they will take the medications or not and either mandates the medication or institutionalization of those who are mentally incapable of making a rational decision, we will continue to have these kind of incidents.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7