You know Q, I tried. I realized my error in baiting you and confessed to it. I also accepted responsibility for the tone of discussion between the two of us. I expected nothing in return from you, and asked for nothing. Yet you did have a choice in how to respond to me, and you could have chosen not to respond at all. You certainly have freedom to post anything you want, as Spookz reminded me.
Yet your choice was not only to continue to ridicule me, including a spelling error (I've made them before and I'll make them again. Was there a rule somewhere stating that all lawyers are good spellers?). Well, you got me on that one. Good job.
My hope was that perhaps you were simply having some fun at my expense and that our interaction would evolve into one enjoyable for both of us. But then you must go one further and attack my character, and claim I am not who I claim to be.
Well. . . I don't think I've given any basis for anyone to doubt my statements, but on the other hand, all I am here is words on a screen. For the record, yes Q, there are trial lawyers for mentally ill people. Was something making you doubt that the mentally ill are entitled to representation? I supposed there is no harm in disclosing what I do, although I choose not to use my full name online, since in fact I often work with dangerous offenders and keep as much of my personal information as private as possible.
I have been an attorney since 1987 and started out doing family law, which I despised. I eventually returned to work I had done as a third year student, which was public defense. In 1998 my father was fatally ill, and I requested a rather low stress assignment, doing what are known as in-custody arraignments in the municipal court. By coincidence, at that time there was a movement to create what are known as "mental health courts" as an alternative to simply jailing and releasing mentally ill defendants without addressing their affliction, which often contributes to their undesireable behavior. We had a new, activist judge, and the prosecutor assigned to that courtroom and I liked and trusted each other. While there was little money available, the court scraped enough to hire a mental health professional, and our mental health court (MHC) was born. The MHC is different because of two main ideas; 1) the principle of "therapeutic jurisprudence", which holds that the defendant's interest and public safety will both be served in the court attempts to address the underlying mental illness instead of jailing the client and releasing him or her untreated. The fact that the client's interest and the public's interest are both served enable the second idea at work, 2) the collaborative method. Criminal cases are inherently adversarial, but by setting a common goal of a client with a stable life, including medications, case management, housing if available, and therapy, suddenly the defense and prosecution have a common goal. I work in a relatively large city with a downtown core of homeless, psychotic folks. Often they are too disorganized in their thinking to rationally participate in proceedings, and sometimes the issue comes up as to whether they can be medicated against their well to regain their "competency". I encourage my clients to accept the medication, but if they choose not to, they have due process rights that must be enforced before they can be medicated against their will, and I have done hundreds of these hearings. So yes, the mentally ill do have litigators. Our MHC has grown over the years, and includes two MHC probation counselors, who must have advanced degrees in a social work or clinical psychology related field, a "court monitor" who functions as a researcher of the client's clinical and social history prior to disposition of the case, and who sets up preliminary "conditions of release" for the clients; there are also two defense attorneys, a prosecutor, a defense social worker, and a judge and staff that have special training. It is tremendously rewarding work, and I'm privileged to do it. Unlike regular courts, the court hearing itself is designed to be "therapeutic", and all the parties develop relationships with the clients over the two years that they participate in our program. We often have "review" hearings not to allege failures by our clients, but to celebrate their successes. I have been humbled many times by my clients. For all of us, any given day may present challenges that make getting out of bed difficult. My client's problems are far more dire than any I have faced; somehow they get out of bed each day and try to have a decent life while struggling with mental illness, poverty, isolation. We try to help with these things, but over time I have realized that it is the clients who deserve the credit for the success of the MHC; what we try to do is remove the barriers between the client and the most successful life they can achieve. Once those barriers are removed, it is up to the client. We do this by helping them sign up for benefits, treatment and housing. I could go on, but you get the idea. Many of my clients are in fact brilliant people; some of them have gone on to remarkable achievments, and I have been moved nearly to tears when they graduated from the program. On the other hand, my clients are what is known as an "at risk" population, and sometimes we lose them, and grieve for them. I truly believe that the measure of a civilization is how it treats its least fortunate. The safety net in this country is not nearly as luxurious as conservative opponents paint it to be. However, I am proud and honored to be a small part of an effort to bring justice and at least some dignity to a few of the very least fortunate.
Over time, by the way, I have noted that the UFO and alien issue rarely creeps into delusions or disordered belief systems. Most of the delusions I encounter run along either paranoid or spiritual lines. People get the idea that their thoughts are controlled by satelittes, or may think that people driving by can hear their thoughts on their car radios. Many clients, while unmedicated, believe they are spiritual beings, or are Jesus Christ himself. Often they respond to internal stimuli while talking to us, and look around as if seeing and hearing things the rest of us cannot. Recently, one woman thought there were dogs running through the courtroom - dogs with her children's faces.
Out of the thousands upon thousands of mentally ill folks I have met since 1998, only two presented with symptoms that included UFOs or aliens. One was a troubled young homeless man, probably experiencing his first psychotic break at about 21, who thought that UFOs might have had something to do with his problems, but wasn't sure. It was not a major component of his belief system or behavior. The other was an older gentleman who had "huffed" himself into extreme brain damage. Huffing is the inhaling of sustances like glue or spraypaint for the high it brings. You always know what someone has been up to when they are arrested with gold paint sprayed on their faces. Anyway, this particular client did hallucinate an "extraterrestrial". This is why I'm skeptical of claims that people who see UFOs are "deluded". I don't present my experience as a formal scientific study, but in terms of mental illness, I've about seen it all, and aliens and UFOs are simply not common manifestations of mental illness.
Having said that, I do believe that there is room for argument on the subject of belief systems. Empirically speaking, it might be more difficult to justify a belief in God any more than in UFOs. Arguably, there may be more direct evidence of UFOs than for God, but that would depend on one's definition of "evidence". Online, it is possible to encounter people who even I would describe as "believers", who seem to employ little critical thinking in their UFO belief system, and who appear to substitute a belief in UFOs for a belief in God. I'm certainly not qualified to speak authoratively on why this is; perhaps some have need to believe in some higher authority of some sort, and they are more comfortable with a belief in benign extraterrestrials. I also spent some time looking into abudction before largely dismissing it. Yes, I read the big green book on the MIT conference and all that. I've also read Mack's work. I've already posted here about abduction; I'm not calling them all liars. There is reason to believe in the subjective sincerity of some of the experiencers. I simply see no articulable basis to believe that what they are going through is in any way related to the UFO phenomenon, and I'm always suspicious when sexual themes start appearing in abudction accounts.
Well, I've rambled enough. Tell you what, Q. I'm willing to re-engage. You've accused me of not directly answering questions, which I've disputed. But - let's let bygones be bygones. Respond and post 5 or 10 - or any number of questions you wish, and I'll respond as best I can. And we'll go from there.
