And that is another stupidity, it should be till they are not a danger to themselves or others. Sure the scizophrenic is going to be a danger longer than the heart attack but once again why punish someone for something which isn't there fault but rather the result of a medical condition?
mental illness and the law
- Thread starter Asguard
- Start date
psychotic in relation to mental illness means you see and/or hear things that are not there.
what do you wish would happen to such a person?
they should either be locked up in an insane asylum or in a prison somewhere.
granted that drugs can relieve some of the symptoms the fact remains they are violently psychotic
btw it's the prosecutors job to get a conviction not to defend the defendant.
But who decides that? There's another problem with that as well. When anyone is ill they are given medications many times that they need to "control" themselves. After they are released from an institution that can make certain they are given those medications and take them as well they are on their own to take the meds and buy the meds. What happens if they either don't take them or can't afford them? Many people suffering from mental illnesses cannot remember when to take their meds and soon just stop altogether and then they start having many of their medical problems start up again endangering others lives as well as their own.
I think the OP meant good healthcare for the mentally ill.
The ethics issue gets a lot thornier. Because in the UK and now in some states in the US, the legal/psychiatric system can force you to take depot injections-a weekly way to give you your med, like it or not.
And either you co-operate or they will arrest you, bend you over, and a nurse will shoot said depot into your butt muscle.
Ideally-and as far as I know, so far-this is ONLY done to MI people with a history of violence. Not "might be," but "have been" violent due to mental illness.
I feel a need to remind you-all, the vast majority of crazy people harm themselves, or are harmed by others, so there's not any justification for forcing treatment in many cases.
There's a young woman at my job whose mother is schizophrenic and does not want meds. Her mother's delusional, but not a threat to anyone(including herself), so nobody forces her to take meds.
Yes, antipsychotics have nasty side effects.
The worst of which is death in the case of clozaril, but is usually limited to getting fat, lethargic, apathetic, dull, possibly diabetic, and/or akathisia-the motor restlessness from hell.
So, forcing treatment...is something I both see the justification for...and really don't like or feel good about.
@ Signal...the psych term you're looking for is "Insight."
Insight leads you to say to yourself "Wow, I've gone completely nuts. I have to do something!" Or..."This drinking isn't working for me, I need to quit it." Basically realizing one is ill.
Not as easy as it sounds when it's your thinking-organ that's the problem.
Some psych disorders have more insight. Depression is a sea of suck, and you want out, so depressives are pretty insightful. Bipolars? It's FUN to be up! Wheee! Until you've been awake for a week and the psychosis sets in...
Schizophrenics often have the voices TELL THEM to avoid treatment:I read a blurb about a survey of non-compliant schizophrenics some time ago... and I think it was about 20% who were told by God to quit taking their medications?:bugeye:
But making treatment much easier to get for those who want it...that would(at least in the US) save a bundle.
Because now they end up being put in jail.:wallbang:
Last edited:
Which is...why it wont work? um...yeah.
And of course identifying peeps before they commit the crime has always been the problem.
Well said, Leopold.
Who mentioned lawyers? You did.
Most people who are violently MI get public defenders if they commit a criminal act under the influence of psychosis, because not being able to hold down a good job is highly likely to go with being mentally ill.
Public defenders like to resolve cases with a guilty plea; it makes their lives easier.:shrug: Public defenders get paid flat rates to defend clients; not very much, and so they like to do a volume business in order to make a fairly good income.
Big complicated cases they'll not do well with in front of a jury? plea-bargain.
Failing to see the huge Leftist conspiracy; perhaps you'd care to explain?
The rich have privilege; that word literally translates as "private law."
That's life.
That's why it takes three doctors signing off on an involuntary commitment order-three psychiatrists have to think you're a threat to others or yourself.
I do hope you meant that small subset of those who have psychotic episodes who are also violent. I have a rather large chip on my shoulder regarding anti MI-stigma.
(This is just in the US, BTW)
Three doctors make a judgment that you're a threat to self or others, you get involuntarily committed to a psych facility...although it's only for a few days, usually.
They'd usually do that for suicidal threats-but if you say you're going to kill someone else, they'll commit you based on that, too.
There is still a state psych hospital for people judged in need of longer-term care.
It's just that these days, people are more likely to end up jailed after they've done something crazy-and illegal. Not murder, usually. Almost always something way more minor.
There's an anti-psychiatric treatment movement, but very few people take them seriously. I don't.
Look, the thought of taking away someone's rights isn't a happy one. If we do it at all, the bar ought to be set very high...but it sometimes needs doing.
I think in my case I look at the Soviets and their habit of locking up dissenters in "psychiatric" facilities...and the whole thing makes me very uneasy.
It all worries me.
And viewing that through the drastic oversimplification of liberal-vs.-conservative(and what you think those labels mean, which might vary dramatically)...
Then ranting about it...it's really getting on my nerves, John.
A self-righteous bout of mutual name-calling wasn't what I was in the mood for.
Labels are just labels. What lawyers and what actions are you objecting to?
Instead of blanket statements, can you link a case that made you angry?
Look, the thought of taking away someone's rights isn't a happy one. If we do it at all, the bar ought to be set very high...but it sometimes needs doing.
I think in my case I look at the Soviets and their habit of locking up dissenters in "psychiatric" facilities...and the whole thing makes me very uneasy.
It all worries me.
And viewing that through the drastic oversimplification of liberal-vs.-conservative(and what you think those labels mean, which might vary dramatically)...
Then ranting about it...it's really getting on my nerves, John.
A self-righteous bout of mutual name-calling wasn't what I was in the mood for.
Labels are just labels. What lawyers and what actions are you objecting to?
Instead of blanket statements, can you link a case that made you angry?
A practical consideration
Setting aside my own society's abysmal mental health care delivery, I would make the point that part of the difference between (A) and (B) is found in the discord between the rhetoric and practical reality of criminal sentencing. Because it has long been popular among politicians in this country to beat their chests about law enforcement, and accuse one another of being "soft on crime", many people have developed a very punitive, empowering attitude toward prison. It's what someone deserves, or some such.
In function, though, incarceration is supposed to be about the safety of the law-abiding citizenry.
I would certainly agree that the prosecutor is mistaken to pursue so ferociously the criminal culpability of the individual suffering a psychotic break, but even in my liberal system, we still must account for the implications toward public safety.
Thus, I would suggest that part of what needs to happen is that all of the allegedly healthy and law-abiding citizens need to reconsider their attitudes toward mental health and criminal justice, both separately and insofar as the subjects engage one another.
Asguard said:
Setting aside my own society's abysmal mental health care delivery, I would make the point that part of the difference between (A) and (B) is found in the discord between the rhetoric and practical reality of criminal sentencing. Because it has long been popular among politicians in this country to beat their chests about law enforcement, and accuse one another of being "soft on crime", many people have developed a very punitive, empowering attitude toward prison. It's what someone deserves, or some such.
In function, though, incarceration is supposed to be about the safety of the law-abiding citizenry.
I would certainly agree that the prosecutor is mistaken to pursue so ferociously the criminal culpability of the individual suffering a psychotic break, but even in my liberal system, we still must account for the implications toward public safety.
Thus, I would suggest that part of what needs to happen is that all of the allegedly healthy and law-abiding citizens need to reconsider their attitudes toward mental health and criminal justice, both separately and insofar as the subjects engage one another.
I'm not advocating putting them on the street but I'm also not talking about giving them life without parole or the death penelty, by the same token being found mentally incompitant shouldn't mean being locked in a mental hospital for the rest of your life. They should revive treatment and the aim should be to release them as soon as possible once they have been treated and with the surport they need to live independently
But living inside of a controlled environment like a hospital only makes them a false sense of security being taken care of sometimes for years then to be put out onto the streets without any job, house or income. Imagine being helped for 5 or 6 years until they determine that you are under control because you are always being helped living inside of a place that gives you everything you need then one day you are standing in the street without anything but yourself to care for yourself. Is that the way people who have mental problems should be dealt with? :shrug:
That just means that the state is providing pisspoor follow up care, maybe insted of worrying about making sure there are enough cosmetic plastic surgeons (as destint from those who work in trauma settings) and providing designer babies the state should provide better mental health care which isn't an optional extra but rather a basic human right.
I was just watching a US show called "most evil" which claims to be based on science and the Guy claims to have a Phd in forensic psychiatry, I say claims because he makes fundermentle mestakes with regard to definitions which arnt consistent with the DSM IV. for instance a women belives that a women who doesn't exist and the women's father are contracting assassins for billions of $ to kill her whole family. This hitman who she kills was her landlord and she claims he told her he framed the Guy for the federal building bombing. There is no claims made that she is lying but he catigorizes her as a psycopath which is plain wrong. She is having delusions caused by a scizophrenic type illness, ie she is psycoTIC not psycopathic. He makes the fundermental mestake of confusing the two completely seprate words which is the reason it was changed to antisocial personality disorder. However the main issue I have is that this women was found compitant to stand trial and responsible for the murder and sentenced to life. Further more its bloody ovious she isn't even getting antipsycotics in jail because she is still delusional and has none of the sideffects of these classes of drugs (which are really ovious if you know what to look for)
But I was only answering your statement about when the people being treated in a hospital are ready to be set free because , as you say, they are under control with their medications they have adjusted to. You wanted them to be released back into society after perhaps years of being in a controlled environment but I asked what are they supposed to do if they have nothing on the outside, no job, no food no shelter? You want to just set them free and then what becomes of them? You now say that the government should have follow up care, just how do they follow someone who has no where to live, no money or no way to get their medications?
You want people to be helped and then set free but there's a big problem there and I'd like to understand what the government is supposed to do by your suggestion of "follow up" care? More money to help those set free after they are treated and are "better"? More staff to do the paperwork to follow these people after they leave? Or what , can you explain, thanks.