Affect and personality
WildfireHi
From: sm...@umich.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck)
<< I haven't seen anyone prosecuted for thought crimes lately >>
In certain states, after sex offenders serve the time for their crime, they
conintue to be incarcerated as being a threat to society based soley on their
thoughts.
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`''`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated is a moderated newsgroup.
Before submitting an article, please read the guidelines which are posted
here bimonthly or the charter on the Web at http://www.grohol.com/sppm/
Submissions are acknowledged automatically.
Gene Douglas
WildfireHi wrote in message ...
|Subject: Re: Affect and personality
|From: sm...@umich.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck)
|
|<< I haven't seen anyone prosecuted for thought crimes lately >>
|
|In certain states, after sex offenders serve the time for their
crime, they
|conintue to be incarcerated as being a threat to society based
soley on their
|thoughts.
I once worked in a forensic mental hospital, in which the patients had
been accused, but not convicted of any crimes. Sometimes their
relatives were adamant that they had committed no crime. The object
of treatment was to prepare them to be competent to stand trial.
However, some could never become competent, and for that reason, had
to remain there until they did. In other words, a life sentence,
though for a mentally well person, the crime might have carried say, 5
years, with 3 years off for good behavior.
Some had been tried, and found not guilty for reason of insanity.
They were returned to the hospital, to be kept until they were "not
dangerous." The clinker there was that there are no valid predictors
for dangerousness. Unless the person is obviously dangerous at the
moment, you just can't tell. Sometimes simple inappropriateness
during a hearing was sufficient for their release to be refused. And
a prime consideration on the hospital's mind was lawsuits, so they
wanted to be able to say that the person not only looked clean, he
also smelled clean, so they couldn't be blamed for anything the person
did later.
In other words, they were incarcerated for their "thoughts," or their
condition which might create a potential for their committing a crime
later.
California has a law allowing an incompetent person to stand trial,
with the condition that "not guilty" or "guilt uncertain" are the only
possible verdicts. (The latter isn't the exact name of the category.)
If the person is not found innocent, then he goes into the system as
if he were guilty but mentally ill, until he becomes competent to
stand trial.
Nancy Stone
Gene Douglas wrote in message ...
>
>WildfireHi wrote in message ...
> |Subject: Re: Affect and personality
> |From: sm...@umich.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck)
> |
> |<< I haven't seen anyone prosecuted for thought crimes lately >>
> |
> |In certain states, after sex offenders serve the time for their
>crime, they
> |conintue to be incarcerated as being a threat to society based
>soley on their
> |thoughts.
>
>I once worked in a forensic mental hospital, in which the patients had
>been accused, but not convicted of any crimes. Sometimes their
>relatives were adamant that they had committed no crime. The object
>of treatment was to prepare them to be competent to stand trial.
A forensic mental hospital is not a prison. Incarceration refers to
imprisonment. Someone who is committed against their will is not
incarcerated, except in a very loose use of the term. It is a mistake to
confuse legal imprisonment as the result of commission of a crime with
involuntary commitment. The intent of commitment is treatment. The intents
of imprisonment are various, but do not include treatment, for starters.
There are many other differences between the two.
>
>However, some could never become competent, and for that reason, had
>to remain there until they did. In other words, a life sentence,
>though for a mentally well person, the crime might have carried say, 5
>years, with 3 years off for good behavior.
Again, you equate sentencing for a crime with treatment. Many people who
have committed no crimes whatsoever spend their entire lives in mental
institutions because they are unable to care for themselves outside such a
setting. This is not imprisonment. It is care. It would make as little
sense to equate people confined to a long-term health care facility with
prison inmates because they cannot live anywhere else either, and many have
no choice about their placement.
>
>Some had been tried, and found not guilty for reason of insanity.
>They were returned to the hospital, to be kept until they were "not
>dangerous." The clinker there was that there are no valid predictors
>for dangerousness. Unless the person is obviously dangerous at the
>moment, you just can't tell. Sometimes simple inappropriateness
>during a hearing was sufficient for their release to be refused. And
>a prime consideration on the hospital's mind was lawsuits, so they
>wanted to be able to say that the person not only looked clean, he
>also smelled clean, so they couldn't be blamed for anything the person
>did later.
Inappropriateness during a hearing suggests an inability to conform one's
behavior to the expectations of society, one of the criteria for determining
competence. You make it sound like a triviality. Someone who understands
the seriousness of the proceedings would presumably not continue such
inappropriate behavior after having been warned about what is or is not
expected. Further, you imply that lawsuits are the primary concern, but
what about concern for the welfare of those who might be harmed by a person
(whose past behavior suggests such harm is possible)?
>
>In other words, they were incarcerated for their "thoughts," or their
>condition which might create a potential for their committing a crime
>later.
You seem to forget that someone does something first to attract the
attention of the law and to suggest that they might be a danger. People are
not rounded up at random to be evaluated. Even if a non-guilty person is
accidentally arrested for a crime, someone suggests the need for psychiatric
evaluation. This is not a routine procedure. Being committed because of a
"condition" is not the same as being incarcerated (e.g., imprisoned) for
having "thoughts." The symptoms suggesting that someone has a "condition"
are frequently behaviors, not just thoughts. If they were only thoughts,
how would anyone know they were occurring? At the very least, there is the
behavior of speaking those thoughts. Speaking deviant thoughts is not a
sufficient diagnostic criterion for any DSM classification that I know of.
>
>California has a law allowing an incompetent person to stand trial,
>with the condition that "not guilty" or "guilt uncertain" are the only
>possible verdicts. (The latter isn't the exact name of the category.)
>If the person is not found innocent, then he goes into the system as
>if he were guilty but mentally ill, until he becomes competent to
>stand trial.
>
Going "in the system" does not necessarily mean that the person will be
institutionalized or imprisoned. There are many circumstances where a
person is judged to be mentally incompetent and thus incapable of having
committed a crime that requires both knowledge of right and wrong and
ability to conform one's behavior to it. Such a person wouldn't even be
tried, but an investigation into the person's circumstances would be made
and changes in that person's situation made if it were determined that they
had harmed another (or themself). For example, someone who is
developmentally disabled and commits manslaughter as a result of a
well-intentioned but harmful act wouldn't be institutionalized until
competent because there is no expectation of them ever becoming competent,
and wouldn't be tried as though they were competent, and wouldn't be
institutionalized unless there were no way for that person to live without
future jeopardy.
Sometimes these anecdotes suggest that laws are not administered by
thinking, feeling human beings with the intent to be fair and do what's best
for all concerned. People fall short of that goal, but I see no reason to
believe that it is not their goal, as Gene implies above (e.g., concern for
lawsuits held to be a higher good than the well-being of the individuals
treated). In California, Tarasoff and other rulings specify the
responsibilities of those in the mental health profession to not only warn
but prevent harm to others committed by people in treatment. Trivializing
"lawsuits" as something with only financial consequences to hospitals
ignores the fact that such lawsuits are brought when someone overlooks their
responsibility to the public in favor of their responsibility to their
client.
Attributions about reasons for caution in evaluating and releasing people
from mental institutions strike me as imputing a "thought crime" to the
administrators of the institution, in the absence of actual knowledge about
what their reasoning was. Avoiding lawsuits is important because lawsuits
arise from wrongs committed, not solely because they frequently bring
monetary awards to the damaged individuals.
Nancy
Agent@Large
the criminal justice system. I worked at the Monroe County Mental
Health Clinic for Soci-Legal Services during a practicum while
attending the University of Rochester many years ago. The
professionals that I worked with invited me to go with them to
meetings of the Rochester Ecumenical Society for Justice Reform
(I think that was its name). Topics included the mentally ill offender
as well as the mentally retarded offender. It was the consensus among
all the psychiatrists, psychologists, and clinical Social Workers who
dealt with forensic issues that institutionalizing mentally ill
patients who were accused of a crime violated their constitutional
right to a speedy trial and that the same crime committed by a
"normal" offender who might receive 1 to 5 years (for example) could
result in the mentally ill offender serving years in an institution -
without a trial or conviction. The mentally ill offender was NOT
institutionalized because he or she couldn't take care of himself or
herself - it was solely because he or she was ACCUSED of committing a
crime. BIG DIFFERENCE from your insensitive post comparing these
individuals with individuals involuntarily committed because they can
not take care of themselves. Insensitive also because you seem to feel
involuntary committal is preferable to incarceration. That's like
saying, "Oh well, even though it's unfair, it could be worse."
(Well, maybe you DON'T think it's unfair to lock someone up for simply
being ACCUSED of a crime - I do; I think innocent until proven guilty
is still the law of the land.)
John Clark
Nancy Stone schrieb:
> A forensic mental hospital is not a prison. Incarceration refers to
> imprisonment. Someone who is committed against their will is not
> incarcerated, except in a very loose use of the term. It is a mistake to
> confuse legal imprisonment as the result of commission of a crime with
> involuntary commitment. The intent of commitment is treatment. The intents
> of imprisonment are various, but do not include treatment, for starters.
> There are many other differences between the two.
The black box approach views confinement to be confinement. How
one is confined may be of some interest but the result is the same.
There is no confusion on involuntary commitment. Incarceration
of criminals is based on their criminal acts. Involuntary commitment,
or the continuance can be based on the expression of the inmate's thoughts,
or assumptions of what those thoughts are as seen in behavior,
or even the non-expression of their thoughts, should they remain
silent during 'therapy treatments'. Which of course is another fundamental
difference between criminals and the insane, criminals have the
right to remain silent, and juries are admonished that a silent
accused is not tantamount to an admission of guilt. The insane
of course have a right to remain silent, and they can claim that
right for the duration of they're being locked up.
Nancy Stone
same as serving time or being in prison.
Nancy
Agent@Large wrote in message ...
Gene Douglas
Nancy Stone wrote in message ...
|I repeat -- being institutionalized, even against one's will, is not
the
|same as serving time or being in prison.
|
|Nancy
|
over a mental hospital any day. Mental patients have even fewer
rights than do prisoners. They may be forced to sit in a day room all
day, (no longer smoke filled, thank goodness) watching daytime TV or
not playing ping pong that they have no interest in (except for a
small minority). Their friends are unconversant, or nonsensibly
conversant. People tell them when they can go outside. People tell
them when they can go to the restroom. They have few rights, and what
rights they do have, they don't know. Their mail is censored. Their
phone calls are censored. They aren't allowed to carry matches, or to
have a ball point. They must write letters with a felt pen, if they
can buy one, which they likely can't. Every detail and every moment
of their life is managed. No, it is not the same.
Below, in a post I have never seen for some reason, incarceration
(being locked up, whatever) in a mental hospital is called "care" or
"treatment." Somehow, giving it another name doesn't make it any
better.
The treatment for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder is medication.
Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. Otherwise, you keep
them until they "clear up." A lot of the "treatment" is just window
dressing. Cooking classes where they are not allowed to have fire or
knives, comes down to telling them about cooking. Art therapy amounts
to taking disabled people and having them make junk that a third
grader wouldn't be proud of. Music therapy doesn't cure
schizophrenia.
The rest is below. A long way, because I don't want to cut a lot of
this.
At that point, the issue isn't competence, but dangerousness. If a
patient passes gas during a hearing, and makes a joke about the beans
at lunch, that may demonstrate that he is lower class and uneducated
rather than dangerous.
You make it sound like a triviality. Someone who understands
|>>the seriousness of the proceedings would presumably not continue
such
|>>inappropriate behavior after having been warned about what is or
is not
|>>expected. Further, you imply that lawsuits are the primary
concern, but
|>>what about concern for the welfare of those who might be harmed by
a
|person (whose past behavior suggests such harm is possible)?
I repeat: They already know that dangerousness can't be predicted.
They are concerned about how it will *look* if anything happens, even
a year after release. If they covered their behinds, and he steals a
car, they can say, "don't look at me." If they released him after he
joked about the beans at lunch, then a lawyer may make hay of that.
|>>
|>>>
|>>>In other words, they were incarcerated for their "thoughts," or
their
|>>>condition which might create a potential for their committing a
crime
|>>>later.
|>>
|>>
|>>You seem to forget that someone does something first to attract
the
|>>attention of the law and to suggest that they might be a danger.
People
|are
|>>not rounded up at random to be evaluated.
Oh, yes they are. I can remember one schizophrenic patient, who got
drunk, and on a cold night climbed into somebody's pickup truck and
passed out in the seat. He was arrested for burglary of a vehicle,
and after he was on his meds again (when he was broke, he couldn't
afford them) a court-appointed lawyer told him to plead guilty for
probation. (Strike one.)
A couple of years later, he is off his meds again, and walking late at
night, needing to take a dump. He was wearing a sarape. He stepped
behind some bushes near a building, and was doing his business, and
was arrested for attempted burglary. His record showed he had been
convicted before, of burglary of a vehicle. He was sent to the
hospital, and I advised him of the Texas 3 strikes law. (Time #3=life
without parole. They use it to get guilty pleas for lessers.) A
guilty plea for probation was not a bargain.
I can remember a retarded patient, who lived next door to a woman who
was afraid of retarded people. Her little girl came home, and her
clothes appeared to be disarrayed, so she complained and he was
arrested for child molestation. As he was unable to ever become not
retarded, and therefore competent to stand trial, there was no way out
of the hospital for him. He was doing a life sentence, (no care
involved, no treatment, either) because of a neighbor's remark.
The stories go on and on.
Even if a non-guilty person is
|>>accidentally arrested for a crime, someone suggests the need for
|psychiatric
|>>evaluation. This is not a routine procedure. Being committed
because of
|a
|>>"condition" is not the same as being incarcerated (e.g.,
imprisoned) for
|>>having "thoughts."
No, it's because of speculation of what his thoughts might be, now or
some time in the future. (The original poster referred to Tx of
pedophiles as punishment for thought crime. If you say schizophrenics
are not locked away for their suspected thoughts, then the same
applies to the pedophiles.)
The symptoms suggesting that someone has a "condition"
|>>are frequently behaviors, not just thoughts. If they were only
thoughts,
|>>how would anyone know they were occurring? At the very least,
there is
|the
|>>behavior of speaking those thoughts. Speaking deviant thoughts is
not a
|>>sufficient diagnostic criterion for any DSM classification that I
know of.
|>>
Yes , but hearing voices is not a crime.
|>>>
|>>>California has a law allowing an incompetent person to stand
trial,
|>>>with the condition that "not guilty" or "guilt uncertain" are the
only
|>>>possible verdicts. (The latter isn't the exact name of the
category.)
|>>>If the person is not found innocent, then he goes into the system
as
|>>>if he were guilty but mentally ill, until he becomes competent to
|>>>stand trial.
|>>>
|>>
|>>
|>>Going "in the system" does not necessarily mean that the person
will be
|>>institutionalized or imprisoned.
The point is that California has a way for the person to exit the
judicial system, if guilt can not be proved. Otherwise, if the court
does not release him, then he is in a situation similar to a Texas
patient.
There are many circumstances where a
|>>person is judged to be mentally incompetent and thus incapable of
having
|>>committed a crime that requires both knowledge of right and wrong
and
|>>ability to conform one's behavior to it. Such a person wouldn't
even be
|>>tried, but an investigation into the person's circumstances would
be made
|>>and changes in that person's situation made if it were determined
that
|they
|>>had harmed another (or themself).
And hospitalization is often a function of how much money he has.
Rich patients have families who know the D.A., the judge, etc., who
will arrange for means to circumvent the law. He "gets some help,"
which may mean a short time in a private hospital or maybe no hospital
at all, and never goes to court at all. Those who show up in the
state hospital, according to statute, are typically poor and semi
illiterate.
For example, someone who is
|>>developmentally disabled and commits manslaughter as a result of a
|>>well-intentioned but harmful act wouldn't be institutionalized
until
|>>competent because there is no expectation of them ever becoming
competent,
|>>and wouldn't be tried as though they were competent, and wouldn't
be
|>>institutionalized unless there were no way for that person to live
without
|>>future jeopardy.
|>>
That appears to be written by Nancy. You listed a number of things
that wouldn't happen. What is left? At least in Texas, he would be
jailed, then go to court where a report from an examiner is read,
saying he is incompetent to stand trial. A jury rubber stamps that,
and he goes to a forensic mental hospital, until he becomes competent
to stand trial.
|>>Sometimes these anecdotes suggest that laws are not administered
Tarasof came about because of people who cared more for keeping things
in their own area running smoothly, than for protecting a person from
a dangerous situation.
|>>
|>>Attributions about reasons for caution in evaluating and releasing
people
|>>from mental institutions strike me as imputing a "thought crime"
to the
|>>administrators of the institution, in the absence of actual
knowledge
|about
|>>what their reasoning was. Avoiding lawsuits is important because
lawsuits
|>>arise from wrongs committed, not solely because they frequently
bring
|>>monetary awards to the damaged individuals.
|>>
|>>Nancy
|>
Lawsuits often arise due to somebody being angry, or due to somebody
seeing an opportunity to make some money, and a lawyer's seeing an
opportunity to convince a jury.
Nancy Stone
Gene Douglas wrote in message ...
>
> |I repeat -- being institutionalized, even against one's will, is not
>the
> |same as serving time or being in prison.
> |
> |Nancy
> |
>No, it is worse. I have worked in both places, and I'd take a prison
>over a mental hospital any day. Mental patients have even fewer
You confuse the effects of the mental illness itself with the effects of
being in any sort of institution. TV is pretty irrelevant when you cannot
concentrate on anything for any length of time. You don't pick your
roommates in a hospital either, or at work, or at the movies. You also
confuse the need to keep someone safe from himself and others with the
intent to limit freedom. In mental institutions the amount of restraint is
related to the symptoms of the illness and the patient's behavior, not the
fact of having committed a crime. The restraints you deplore may enhance a
mental patients sense of safety for all you know. You evaluate it the way
you yourself would respond to such restraints, but you forget that the
people experiencing the place are mentally ill, not in your mental state.
You forget that people can feel better, less anxious, with rules and
constraints.
In the remainder of your post you suggest that mental illness is not
effectively treated and that people pass gas in public because they are
uneducated or have little income (e.g., lower class). I think those are
both dubious propositions.
Nancy
Gene Douglas
|
|Gene Douglas wrote in message ...
|>
|>Nancy Stone wrote in message ...
|> |I repeat -- being institutionalized, even against one's will, is
not
|>the
|> |same as serving time or being in prison.
|> |
|> |Nancy
|> |
|>No, it is worse. I have worked in both places, and I'd take a
prison
| >over a mental hospital any day. Mental patients have even fewer
|
|
|You confuse the effects of the mental illness itself with the
effects of
|being in any sort of institution. TV is pretty irrelevant when you
cannot
|concentrate on anything for any length of time. You don't pick your
|roommates in a hospital either, or at work, or at the movies.
My point was, incarceration is incarceration (getting locked up.) A
mental hospital is decidedly more unpleasant than a prison. And if a
person "does life" because he is unable to become competent to stand
trial, there is at the very least, an irony involved there.
You also
|confuse the need to keep someone safe from himself and others with
the
|intent to limit freedom.
Unfortunately, that can't be done without limiting freedom.
In mental institutions the amount of restraint is
|related to the symptoms of the illness and the patient's behavior,
not the
|fact of having committed a crime.
A minimum degree of restraint is the rule that you can't leave.
The restraints you deplore may enhance a
|mental patients sense of safety for all you know.
Depends on which ones. A person who is there for life, isn't asked
how he likes it.
You evaluate it the way
|you yourself would respond to such restraints, but you forget that
the
|people experiencing the place are mentally ill, not in your mental
state.
|You forget that people can feel better, less anxious, with rules and
|constraints.
Some people, some times.
|
|In the remainder of your post you suggest that mental illness is not
|effectively treated and that people pass gas in public because they
are
|uneducated or have little income (e.g., lower class). I think those
are
|both dubious propositions.
|
|Nancy
Possibly he passes gas because he is dangerous?
cut
Once he is not guilty for reason of insanity, then the next question
is dangerousness.
So what is left to do with him?
|>
cut
In California, Tarasoff and other rulings specify the
|> |>>responsibilities of those in the mental health profession to
not
|>only warn
|> |>>but prevent harm to others committed by people in treatment.
|>Trivializing
|> |>>"lawsuits" as something with only financial consequences to
|>hospitals
|> |>>ignores the fact that such lawsuits are brought when someone
|>overlooks
|> |their
|> |>>responsibility to the public in favor of their responsibility
to
|>their
|> |>>client.
|>
|>Tarasof came about because of people who cared more for keeping
things
|>in their own area running smoothly, than for protecting a person
from
|>a dangerous situation.
|> |>>
cut
Tim McNamara
<dans...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I repeat -- being institutionalized, even against one's will, is not the
> same as serving time or being in prison.
In theory perhaps, the difference being that the primary purpose of a
prison is punishment whereas the putative purpose of a state hospital
is treatment. Unfortunately the differences are more a matter of
semantics than truth.
It makes little difference to the committed person whether they are in
prison or in a forensic hospital. Indeed, inmates in prison have
greater protections for their civil rights than do people involuntarily
committed to a mental institution. Besides that, prison inmates know
when they are going to be released; people committed to hospitals do
not. On the whole, incarceration may be preferable than involuntary
committment from the perspective of the person on the inside.
W.E. 'Bill' Goodrich, PhD
"Nancy Stone" <dans...@earthlink.net> writes:
> I repeat -- being institutionalized, even against one's will, is
> not the same as serving time or being in prison.
While true on the face of it, that is not responsive to the issue at
hand. You are attempting to move the argument to the opposite end of
the "criminal justice" process. Agent is arguing that UNDER THE CITED
CIRCUMSTANCES the form of involuntary instutionalization he describes
is a subset of the process of being held in custody pending trial. By
the same token, being hospitalized for a serious gunshot wound is
"not the same as serving time or being in prison" but if the patient
is a "suspect" in police custody (awaiting trial), it IS a form of
pretrial incarceration (albeit a specialized form).
There are places in this world where "suspects" can be held "pending
trial" for an indefinite period. Our "Founding Fathers" specifically
outlawed that practice in the US. The argument that Agent's
professionals advanced was that the form and context of the
involuntary institutionalization under discussion is effectively a
form of that proscribed practice.
--
W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD
*-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*
* CHANGE YOUR SEXUALITY * http://www.nyx.net/~bgoodric/ctg.html *
* * *
* Without Aversive * bgoo...@nyx.net bgoo...@filebank.com *
* Behavior Modification * Creative Technology Group *
* or Drugs * PO Box 286 *
* * Englewood, CO 80151-0286 *
*-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*
W.E. 'Bill' Goodrich, PhD
W.E. 'Bill' Goodrich, PhD
> I repeat -- being institutionalized, even against one's will, is
> not the same as serving time or being in prison.
While true on the face of it, that is not responsive to the issue at
John Clark
Silke-Maria Weineck schrieb:
> In sci.psychology.psychotherapy Nancy Stone <dans...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> : TV is pretty irrelevant when you cannot
> : concentrate on anything for any length of time. You don't pick your
> : roommates in a hospital either, or at work, or at the movies.
>
> I can check myelf out of a hospital, I can quit my job and I can most
I think you mentioned that a sibling was mentally ill. It would perhaps
be better if you used their example, if they were ever institutionalized.
Unless a person is catatonic, and even then it would be debatable
about the 'level of concentration observed', most ambulant inmates
are 'conscious' of their confinement, and aware of their limitations
as set by the staff, in fact being able to be free to use the 'day room',
take advantage of their ambulatory ability, is based on their cognizance
of the limits set by the staff in many cases, otherwise, yeah, the
catatonic in room 5 is being parked in the dayroom for a spell...
Nancy Stone
Gene is comparing being institutionalized with being in prison, not with
leading a normal life. I agree that being institutionalized is not like
living outside an institution. I disagree that it is like being in prison
in many important respects. That's my only point. The evidence that Gene
brings up as points of similarity are not relevant to the comparison, in my
opinion, because they do not distinguish mental institutions from many other
life situations experienced by those not in such institutions. Prisons and
mental institutions both serve food. So do restaurants. Can you claim that
prisons and mental institutions are the same on that basis? I don't think
so. That is the problem I have with Gene's comments.
To say it more directly. The aspect of limited freedom exists in many kinds
of institutions and situations experienced by people who are neither
prisoners nor mentally ill. Simple limitation of freedom is not sufficient
to define prisons or mental institutions. If you want to take it further,
both are places to keep people who have behaved in deviant ways, both
involve exclusion from society, both involve residency contingent of future
behavior. But you also have to consider the features that distinguish the
two from each other before you can assert that they are the equal, rather
than merely similar in some respects. I was trying to suggest some of those
differentiating features, not denying the similarities. A balloon and a
baseball are both round. Can you tell them apart by shape? No. You need
to look at what makes them different, not what makes them the same.
Nancy
Silke-Maria Weineck wrote in message ...
>In sci.psychology.psychotherapy Nancy Stone <dans...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
>: Gene Douglas wrote in message ...
>:>
>:>Nancy Stone wrote in message ...
>:> |I repeat -- being institutionalized, even against one's will, is not
>:>the
>:> |same as serving time or being in prison.
>:> |
>:> |Nancy
>:> |
>:>No, it is worse. I have worked in both places, and I'd take a prison
>:>over a mental hospital any day. Mental patients have even fewer
>
>
>: You confuse the effects of the mental illness itself with the effects of
>: being in any sort of institution.
>
>Nancy, I think you're overstating your case. The effects of the
>institution and the effects of mental illness are often damn hard to
>distinguish, once you're inside. I'm sure you have seen some of those
>places, as have I.
>
> TV is pretty irrelevant when you cannot
>: concentrate on anything for any length of time. You don't pick your
>: roommates in a hospital either, or at work, or at the movies.
>
>I can check myelf out of a hospital, I can quit my job and I can most
>certainly chose the movie theater I'm attending. Not everybody who's
>committed "cannot contrate on anything for any length of time," and while
>I agree that chosing your TV station of watching time is a pretty bad
>example of civic liberty, it just might do to illustrate the principle.
> Neither is it at all apparent that all of these institutions do
>offer "care" -- the horror stories are a bit too frequent to make me think
>that there are all exceptions to a benign rule.
>
>You also
>: confuse the need to keep someone safe from himself and others with the
>: intent to limit freedom.
>
>I think you're assuming too much here when you speak of "need" -- 'desire'
>or 'intent' might be a better choice.
> I think these are matters of subtlety and gradation -- in the end,
>I think people do have a right to lead messy miserable uncared-for lives
>if that is what they want, and as long as they do not pose a threat to
>others. I don't think you can make a case that everybody in these
>institutions were a danger to others if let free.
>
> In mental institutions the amount of restraint is
>: related to the symptoms of the illness and the patient's behavior, not
the
>: fact of having committed a crime. The restraints you deplore may enhance
a
>: mental patients sense of safety for all you know.
>
>Or may not. Conditions are bad many places, and whether some staff
>members are overworked, underpaid, underqualified and undertrained or just
nasty by
>inclination is hard to establish, but it might be a good idea to address
>conditions as they actually are not as a PR editor might describe them.
>Not too long ago, someone posted the URL of a quite detailed article by a
>journalist who checked himself into a psych emergency ward in NYC -- his
>experiences sounded pretty much like many other stories I've heard (and
>watched, though not in this country), and I have no reason to doubt his
>account. Do you remember it?
>
>: You evaluate it the way
>: you yourself would respond to such restraints, but you forget that the
>: people experiencing the place are mentally ill, not in your mental state.
>: You forget that people can feel better, less anxious, with rules and
>: constraints.
>
>But the emphasis is on "can." I don't like the implicit assumption above
>that the mentally ill are so fundamentally different from "us" as to
>fundamentally change their reactions to involuntary confinement and a host
>of indignities we would never put up with can be redefined like. My
>brother has been in and out for many years, and he never got used to it or
>felt relieved that someone finally shot him full of Haldol again (against
>the explicit instructions on his chart). If anything, he felt the loss of
>freedom more acutely and experienced more terror and fright than I might
>have in a similar situation.
>
>silke
sara...@my-dejanews.com
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html I worked in a mental hospital from Nov
1978-Nov 1979. One of the primary reasons I left was I thought we were
violating some of these rights. Especially #5, #9, #18.
On the other hand, since I can become psychotic, I DO want others to be able
to make the decision to restrain me from hurting myself or others. I think
of it as being vulnerable in the same way anyone who needs emergency care is.
The staff can really hurt you and it's in your interest to have a powerful
advocate. Could happen with a stroke, heart attack, accidents requiring
medical care.
The two complementaries of human rights versus adequate treatment of violently
mentally ill (or neurologically ill) people may be irreconcilable.
What do others think?
Saragale
In article <SPPM9901041...@cmhcsys.cmhc.com>,
--
Saragale
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
sisyphus
attitude of the "keepers." In prisons, guards view prisoners along the
lines of, "scum of the earth." And therefore deserving of punishment,
yes even of death. But punishment is most usually time limited.
And prisoners are not regarded as _hopeless._ At least not entirely.
Recidivism rates are around 80%, so some success is expected.
With the mentally ill, the keepers generally view their patients
as pretty much hopeless, save for the action of a drug. The patients
are not only viewed as hopeless, but also infantilized, since they are
viewed as not responsible for their condition.
My point is that mental patients suffer both a feeling of hopelessness
_and_ infantilization.
My apologies to those whose attitudes are different.
Norm
John Clark
Nancy Stone schrieb:
> Silke,
>
> Gene is comparing being institutionalized with being in prison, not with
> leading a normal life. I agree that being institutionalized is not like
> living outside an institution. I disagree that it is like being in prison
> in many important respects. That's my only point. The evidence that Gene
> brings up as points of similarity are not relevant to the comparison, in my
> opinion, because they do not distinguish mental institutions from many other
> life situations experienced by those not in such institutions. Prisons and
> mental institutions both serve food. So do restaurants.
Restaurants again... ya gets no bread with one meat ball...
But the point of similarity is in the confinement of the individual, and
the number of choices that the individual can make for themself. In both
situations of confinement, what is presented in the cafateria is
1) accepted as food, with what ever 'subchoice' is offered, or 2)
accepted as food, whatever is presented.
If a restaurant offers no palatable choices, the patron is free to leave,
even if that means that the patron will go hungery as there
may not be any other restaurant available. However, in the
case of the mental patient, I don't think the 'right of refusal'
exists, in the sense that the surrounding staff will not worry
about such a choice.
Since I don't have any one who has been in an institution,
either jail or mental health, what is the current instituional
policy on vegetarian diets or if meat is eaten, avoiding
particular food types such as pork products, lard, etc,
which are not based on a medical indication, but
rather on the individual's personal beliefs, whether supported
by a particular religious group, or as an individual choice.
Nancy Stone
Tim McNamara wrote in message ...
>In article <SPPM9901040...@cmhcsys.cmhc.com>, Nancy Stone
><dans...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> I repeat -- being institutionalized, even against one's will, is not the
>> same as serving time or being in prison.
>
>prison is punishment whereas the putative purpose of a state hospital
>is treatment. Unfortunately the differences are more a matter of
>semantics than truth.
>
>It makes little difference to the committed person whether they are in
>prison or in a forensic hospital. Indeed, inmates in prison have
>greater protections for their civil rights than do people involuntarily
>committed to a mental institution. Besides that, prison inmates know
>when they are going to be released; people committed to hospitals do
>not. On the whole, incarceration may be preferable than involuntary
>committment from the perspective of the person on the inside.
>
It would have made a big difference to John Salvi if he had been in a mental
hospital instead of in prison. Although schizophrenic, he received no
treatment in prison and ultimately committed suicide despite the warnings of
his family and their repeated pleas that he be treated. If he had been in a
mental hospital, he most likely would not only have received some treatment
but also been put on suicide watch. That means he would perhaps not now be
dead. To me, that is a big difference, perhaps not in quality of life, but
certainly in terms of life itself. Why did this happen? Because so many
people were outraged by the crime he committed that they did not care
whether he was appropriately treated but wished instead for retribution.
Despite his mental illness, many were pleased when he died, just as people
were pleased when Jeffrey Dahmer was killed in prison.
Nancy Stone
abandoned the mentally ill" by Rael Jean Isaac & Virginia C. Armat (1990)
expresses many of my concerns with current treatment or lack thereof of the
mentally ill. The criticisms of mental institutions that I see posted
resemble stereotypes drawn from abuses earlier this century. These were
rightfully criticized, but the solution was not to shut down access to
institutional care. As the book points out, current neglect is much worse
and families are not well-equipped to function as mental institutions. The
book discusses how we got to our current policies and why community services
are not enough.
The books says: "In California, police are reluctant to take even the most
seriously mentally ill on the streets to the hospital. A spokesman for the
Sacramento police complained that time to do the paperwork was usually
longer than the individual's stay in the hospital! Intent on pushing
patients out, public mental hospitals all too often exhibit little interest
in where they go...It remains a common practice for hospitals to release
patients directly to [homeless] shelters. To replace mental hospitals, we
have thus brought back the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century poorhouse,
which threw together the mentally retarded, the mentally ill, drug and
alcohol abusers, criminals, the physically disabled elderly, mothers with
young children, and so on. It was precisely to remove the mentally ill from
such settings that Dorothea Lynde Dix in the 1840s embarked on her crusade
to build state mental hospitals in restful, bucolic settings." (p. 7-8,
citations omitted).
From pg 9: "Out of the public eye, the largest proportion (40%) of the
mentally ill have been cared for by their families, forced into the role of
mini-institutions, living in sometimes daily terror of what the untreated
person might do to them or to himself. Or the mentally ill have stayed in
coffin-like rooms in deteriorated inner-city SROs (single room occupancy
hotels)..Others went to nursing homes or board and care homes, which at
least provided food as well as shelter. Often, hospital discharges of
patients to families are only superficially more appropriate than to
shelters. James Howe, formerly president of NAMI...describes being
approached by a frail old woman at a meeting in Maryland, distraught because
her son had just been discharged into her care: 'You talk about
deinstitutionalization. They sent him from Springfield State Hospital [in
Maryland] back to this woman who is 92 years old. He's 55...'
Unable to secure treatment for those they love, families are as much victims
as the mentally ill themselves."
From pg 16: "Now madness itself would become another avenue for the
expression of legitimate human autonomy..Today the Bedlam on our streets is
upsetting to the average citizen, corrosive of civilized society, and above
all cruel and degrading to the mentally ill themselves. As E Fuller Torrey
rightly points out, the 'freedom to be insane is an illusory freedom, a
cruel hoax perpetrated on those who cannot think clearly by those who will
not think clearly.' Despite major developments in the medical knowledge of
mental illness in the 1970s, the hoax that mental illness does not exist
continues to haunt our public policy."
From my own experiences with a schizophrenic relative, I know that his
family was unprepared to care for him. I cannot imagine how a 72 year old
woman would be better equipped than we were. I cannot imagine how a child
could be expected to care for an adult mentally ill person with a machete.
To me, the question is not "why did the police shoot these individuals" but
rather, "why are the police expected to be mental health caregivers when
family care proves insufficient?"
The term "mentally ill" covers a lot of territory, and I am obviously
talking about those individuals with serious, chronic illnesses that prevent
their independent functioning, either sporadically or on an ongoing basis.
Nancy
John Clark
Silke-Maria Weineck schrieb:
> In sci.psychology.psychotherapy John Clark <j1c...@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> : Silke-Maria Weineck schrieb:
>
>
> :> In sci.psychology.psychotherapy Nancy Stone <dans...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> :> : TV is pretty irrelevant when you cannot
> :> : concentrate on anything for any length of time. You don't pick your
> :> : roommates in a hospital either, or at work, or at the movies.
> :>
> :> I can check myelf out of a hospital, I can quit my job and I can most
>
> : I think you mentioned that a sibling was mentally ill. It would perhaps
> : be better if you used their example, if they were ever institutionalized.
>
> I did. What is your point?
I don't think Nancy doubts your ability to check in or even out of a
hospital. She seems to think that mentally ill people preceive an
insitution differently than you, I, or even she would.
Nancy Stone
there, food might be pretty important to you. For someone seriously ill
enough to require institutionalization, food is the least of their concerns.
Further, your description implies that those hired to cook show no concern
for whether the food is palatable or nutritious. (I think you may have
slighted an entire profession.) It's a lot easier for relatives to bring
extra goodies to a loved one in the hospital than it is to keep them from
being shot by the cops. I find it pretty hard to believe that anyone is
seriously arguing that the mentally ill should not be treated in an
appropriate environment because they might not like eating hospital food.
Nancy
John Clark wrote in message ...
Nancy Stone
Silke-Maria Weineck wrote in message ...
>
>: Gene is comparing being institutionalized with being in prison, not with
>: leading a normal life. I agree that being institutionalized is not like
>: living outside an institution. I disagree that it is like being in
prison
>: in many important respects.
>
>regards -- the main difference is that the captive committed no crime.
I disagree. The main difference is that they are being treated, kept in a
relatively safe environment, and have some stability and foundation from
which to improve absent the stresses of having to care for themselves, fend
off predators, find food and shelter, and so on. Meeting the demands of
self care appears trivial only if you take it for granted, but it is
unachievable for those with serious mental illnesses. That's how they wind
up in such places.
>Often, there is little care, little competence, considerable brutality,
>and very little accountability; people are being held there against their
>will and without a trial that would hold up to comparison to a full-blown
>criminal jury trial. It's bad, Nancy, very very bad -- and the good
>intentions I fully acknowledge have brought about the system don't make it
>any better, or any less like prison.
If it is that bad, let's work to improve it. The alternative is much worse.
The aspect of being held against one's will, having no trial etc. is not a
factor in California, except for those who have committed crimes. There is
no committment without court action in which the patient must be represented
by counsel. There are legal aid attorneys who take such cases. I know how
difficult it is to have someone remain in an institution because family have
fervently wished it but been unable to have it happen absent presence of
danger to the self or others.
Choices are meaningless when you are talking about someone who cannot take
advantage of them, whether in an institution or not. The brutality outside
insitutions is much worse than anything perpetrated within them. For
example, people in the LA area have taken to soaking homeless people with
gasoline again and setting them afire. They don't bother making sure the
victim is sane before doing so. Do hospital workers do this?
>
>: That's my only point. The evidence that Gene
>: brings up as points of similarity are not relevant to the comparison, in
my
>: opinion, because they do not distinguish mental institutions from many
other
>: life situations experienced by those not in such institutions. Prisons
and
>: mental institutions both serve food. So do restaurants. Can you claim
that
>: prisons and mental institutions are the same on that basis? I don't
think
>: so. That is the problem I have with Gene's comments.
>
>But the main point discusses here is captivity against someone's will --
>and there are very few situations that compare to it. Besides prison and
>commitment I can think only of kidnapping and POV or concentration camps.
We all do many things against our will. Our lives are continually coerced.
The difference is that we conform our own behavior to what we know we must
do in order to survive because the consequences are worse than the actions
required to prevent them. The mentally ill person is largely incapable of
doing that. That raises the need for external coercion. I do not believe
it is the fact of coercion that is pernicious, but rather the interests in
which it is done. Prisons and concentration camps do so for the welfare of
others with minimal (if any) regard for the inmate. Hospitals exist to
provide services to the patient first and society second. This is a very
big difference.
>
>: To say it more directly. The aspect of limited freedom exists in many
kinds
>: of institutions and situations experienced by people who are neither
>: prisoners nor mentally ill.
>
>No, they don't, Nancy. Besides a few hours at various borders, I have
>never in my adult life been in a situation I couldn't leave at will.
Live a while longer. Could you leave the hospital at the moment your
children were being born? I doubt it. Can you really spend a week away
from home without telling your family where you've gone and why? How long
do you think they'd hold your job for you if you just didn't show up for
work without explanation? Can you really not take showers for a week or
two, without consequences you wouldn't want to suffer? Can you skip eating
for a week? I doubt it. What makes the difference is that you have
accepted the constraints on your own behavior, internalized them and made
them things you wish to do, not things you have to do. ("You" here is used
in the general, not the specific sense, since we all do this.) To the
extent that the mentally ill do not do this, it will affect their
functioning and people must help them do it. That involves coercion because
they cannot do it themself, but it is no less necessary and coerced than the
things we willingly accept to do. The form of coercion is different, that's
all. The illusion of control is important to the sane. It is missing in
the mentally ill before they reach insitutions and is one of the things that
brings them to such places.
>
>: Simple limitation of freedom is not sufficient
>: to define prisons or mental institutions.
>
>Seems to cover the main aspect of prison pretty well -- that's what being
>imprisoned means -- loss of your freedom. And as it so happens, that's
>exactly what involuntary commitment does as well -- it deprives you of
>your physical freedom. To be sure, the motivations are different, but to
>the inmate, it doesn't matter that much, I'd guess.
>
Prisons also include forced labor, loss of identity, brutalization by other
inmates, exposure to AIDs and second-hand smoke (if not first-hand), loss of
privileges associated with citizenship (if a felony), restricted society,
and so on. The inmate, if sane, prefers to be free and thus misses the loss
of freedom feeling it as a punishment, unlike the mentally ill who may feel
comforted by the predictability of the environment, the structure, and the
routines enforced. People do get better in mental institutions, but I doubt
they do so in prisons or on the streets, or in overwhelmed family
situations.
Would it be a matter of indifference to you whether a relative were housed
in a prison rather than a mental institution? If not, why not?
Nancy
>
>L If you want to take it further,
>: both are places to keep people who have behaved in deviant ways, both
>: involve exclusion from society, both involve residency contingent of
future
>: behavior. But you also have to consider the features that distinguish
the
>: two from each other before you can assert that they are the equal, rather
>: than merely similar in some respects. I was trying to suggest some of
those
>: differentiating features, not denying the similarities. A balloon and a
>: baseball are both round. Can you tell them apart by shape? No. You
need
>: to look at what makes them different, not what makes them the same.
>
>This looks to me more like the difference between a tennis and a golf
>ball.
>
>smw
John Clark
Nancy Stone schrieb:
> I think the book "Madness in the Streets: How psychiatry and the law
> abandoned the mentally ill" by Rael Jean Isaac & Virginia C. Armat (1990)
> expresses many of my concerns with current treatment or lack thereof of the
> mentally ill. The criticisms of mental institutions that I see posted
> resemble stereotypes drawn from abuses earlier this century.
Well, unless 'earlier this century' includes late '60's and early '70's, I'll
disagree that things were wonderful then. Also I don't think I've said,
'now that the institutions are less populated, things are wonderful' either.
I have no problem with state supported social services either for 'families
of the mentally ill' or various types of other living accomodations outside
of an institution. And I agree that someone who is really unable to
care for themself, or be care for with reasonable means, may very well
be better off in some institution. However, my current experience
with my mother, who is in full mental capability and finding a 'nice
living condition' for her, is incredibly difficult. Find a place for
someone who could easily become the 'catatonic on aisle 5' is even more
so if some sort of 'dignity of life' is to be acheved.
If your inclined, check out the reputation for Edgemoor in Santee...
John Clark
Nancy Stone schrieb:
> If you were in a mental institution, given that you have no reason to be
> there, food might be pretty important to you. For someone seriously ill
> enough to require institutionalization, food is the least of their concerns.
As I said, I don't know what current practice is in institutionalization.
However
I think it is wrong to presume what is or is not important to someone. A
'trivial' detail can become very important to someone who has nothing else.
Since the closest I got to 'institutionization' was as a volunteer in a
drug hotline agency, the 'treatment' I witnessed at the time consisted of
administering sufficient drugs and/or restrains to 'subdue/stablize' and then
figure out whether to pack the person off to Paten or not. This was in the late
60's. We only took people there if they were violent. If they were OD'ing,
County Hospital was the place, across the street from Count Mental Health.
If they were neither violent nor OD'ing we didn't take them to either place.
At the hospital, once the person stablized from the OD episode, they may
or may not have been taken to CMH. Usually by that time some
family member was available to make the decision. My perenial
recommendation when asked was to take the person home and find
private therapy if at all possible.
I think this will be the last post from me on this topic. I don't disagree with
the idea of care for those who can't care for themselves. But I do disagree
on how that is preceived by the individual, and how that 'caring' has
been implemented in the 'recent' past of this waining century.
John Clark
Nancy Stone schrieb:
> intent to limit freedom. In mental institutions the amount of restraint is
> related to the symptoms of the illness and the patient's behavior, not the
> fact of having committed a crime. The restraints you deplore may enhance a
> mental patients sense of safety for all you know. You evaluate it the way
> you yourself would respond to such restraints, but you forget that the
> people experiencing the place are mentally ill, not in your mental state.
> You forget that people can feel better, less anxious, with rules and
> constraints.
With my living companion at the time, she indicated there were 2 experiences
of institutionalization. In her case, because she was divorced and had no
health plan, or financial means, she was placed in Manhatten State and Patten
State Hospitals for various periods of time in the 60's. At no point did she
ever
indicate that her anxiety level, sense of 'safety' or sense of being 'treated'
have
any positive sense. The pictures of her with her children on a rare outing
around christmas time has clear indications of the rigidity associated with
being medicated with thorazine. I believe John Price has indicated that
advancements have been made in the area of such 'maintenance' drugs for
psychotics.
The 'other' experience that my friend reported was that of those persons
in the same period who had a health plan or financial capability to pay
for private facilities. The difference was perphaps on a par with
a La Jolla Country Club(wealthy section of San Diego) and a Logan
Height's dive(poor crime ridden ). She knew these people because
they were once her friends when she was married to an engineer
and traveled in a bit more upscale circle. With divorce, she lost
that 'level' and with 'what ever caused her mental illness' the 'friends'
vacated as well.
I have a sort of a strange recollection of that period on the differences
between 'crazy' and 'criminal'. In the church group that my friend
attended for a long period of time, both before institutionalizaiton and
after, there was a man who was convicted of making pornographic films.
In the early 70's such a 'crime' was no longer in existence and
as far as I could tell from various intractions with other churchmembers
there was no social ostriziation. In my friend's case, very frequently
she would get 'feedback' from well meaning friends that her presence
caused some people 'concern', and especially after it was obvious
that she had a 'younger man', me, in some cohabitation relationship.
I'm sure that in these modern times the mentally ill's experience is
vastly different, namely, the mentally ill are welcomed into society,
while criminals are ostracized, and every mentally ill person understands
that 'for your own good' means in many cases begging and fawning
for any form of 'personal space'. And if institution staff does not
use what would be classed as emotional extortion on such things
as 'TV privileges, personal effects privileges, even perhaps visitation
privileges, etc' to effect results the please indicate how things are now
in institutions.
In that vein, recently a woman was found dead in the downtown
area of San Diego. In the article a person who knew the woman indicated
that even if a facility was available for overnight stays the woman
would not have taken the opportunity, as she would rather have
her alcohol than the comfort of a warm room and food without alcohol.
I think the woman would experience 'institutionalization' as 'prison'
and not been in the least impressed by 'for your own good'.
Gene Douglas
Nancy Stone wrote in message ...
|
|Gene is comparing being institutionalized with being in prison, not
with
|leading a normal life. I agree that being institutionalized is not
like
|living outside an institution. I disagree that it is like being in
prison
|in many important respects.
That's drifting from the original topic. Sometimes individuals "do
time" for life, due to what they may be thinking, now or in the
future, sometimes for life. This may be whether or not they have
actually committed the crime they are accused of, or whether or not
they are actually harmful to themselves or others (granted, for a
minority of those in the system.)
Though the intention may not be to punish, the effect is punishing.
Not all mental patients float around in a daze. Some know exactly
what is going on, except that they also happen to hear voices, or have
some odd ideas.
And no, a mental insitution is no a prison. For my money, and that of
a lot of other people, it is worse than a prison, because one's
freedom is much more restricted. And not everybody does like that,
contrary to some opinion.
That's my only point. The evidence that Gene
|brings up as points of similarity are not relevant to the
comparison, in my
|opinion, because they do not distinguish mental institutions from
many other
|life situations experienced by those not in such institutions.
Prisons and
|mental institutions both serve food. So do restaurants. Can you
claim that
|prisons and mental institutions are the same on that basis? I don't
think
|so. That is the problem I have with Gene's comments.
The points of similarity were due to the original comment, which did
not involve prison, either. It involved a pedophile being labeled for
life, thus giving him a life sentence, though the writer felt he had
"paid his debt" when he left the prison gate.
Gene Douglas
sisyphus wrote in message ...
|I think the shame of both our prisons and mental institutions is the
|attitude of the "keepers." In prisons, guards view prisoners along
the
|lines of, "scum of the earth."
In the state hospital where I worked, they tried to train the minimum
wage people not to see the patients as "scumbags" who deserved
anything they got, or as comical figures with ridiculous ideas. I
eventually resorted to movie metaphors, and a few of them seemed to
get it.
If you were Gregory Peck in The Omen, and you had been through all
that he had, would you say to yourself, "These things don't really
happen. What appears to be so, is just some kind of mistake." Or
would you say, "My son is the devil, and I have to kill him to save
the world?"
They all agreed they would choose the latter. Then I asked if they
had seen "Poltergeist." Yes. Well, if you looked into a mirror, and
saw that your face was melting, would you say that this is impossible,
so it couldn't really happen, or would you say, "Omigod. My face is
melting." They agreed they would say the latter. So at least a tiny
handful of them may have learned a different attitude from that.
And therefore deserving of punishment,
|yes even of death. But punishment is most usually time limited.
|And prisoners are not regarded as _hopeless._ At least not entirely.
|Recidivism rates are around 80%, so some success is expected.
|With the mentally ill, the keepers generally view their patients
|as pretty much hopeless, save for the action of a drug.
Remission rates for schizophrenics and bipolars is probably in the 80%
or better range. However, that doesn't keep the public from labeling
them as rejects.
The patients
|are not only viewed as hopeless, but also infantilized, since they
are
|viewed as not responsible for their condition.
Nor for whatever they do as a result of their condition. Nor for
whatever they do, period, because anything they do might be a result
of their condition. Nor for anything they say, nor any opinion they
may have about anything.
|My point is that mental patients suffer both a feeling of
hopelessness
|_and_ infantilization.
|
|My apologies to those whose attitudes are different.
|
|Norm.
Gene Douglas
words, the comparison is in the loss of freedom. Granted, this is
necessary in order for certain treatment to happen. But earlier posts
related to the exceptions. (As usual, JC drifted into irrelevancy,
which more literally related to food.)
Nancy Stone wrote in message ...
|If you were in a mental institution, given that you have no reason
to be
|there, food might be pretty important to you. For someone seriously
ill
|enough to require institutionalization, food is the least of their
concerns.
|Further, your description implies that those hired to cook show no
concern
|for whether the food is palatable or nutritious. (I think you may
have
|slighted an entire profession.) It's a lot easier for relatives to
bring
|extra goodies to a loved one in the hospital than it is to keep them
from
|being shot by the cops. I find it pretty hard to believe that
anyone is
|seriously arguing that the mentally ill should not be treated in an
|appropriate environment because they might not like eating hospital
food.
|
|Nancy
|
|
|John Clark wrote in message ...
|>
|>
|>Nancy Stone schrieb:
|>
|>> Silke,
|>>
|>> Gene is comparing being institutionalized with being in prison,
not with
|>> leading a normal life. I agree that being institutionalized is
not like
|>> living outside an institution. I disagree that it is like being
in
|prison
|>> in many important respects. That's my only point. The evidence
that
|Gene
|>> brings up as points of similarity are not relevant to the
comparison, in
|my
|>> opinion, because they do not distinguish mental institutions from
many
|other
|>> life situations experienced by those not in such institutions.
Prisons
|and
|>> mental institutions both serve food. So do restaurants.
|>
|>Restaurants again... ya gets no bread with one meat ball...
|>
|>But the point of similarity is in the confinement of the
individual, and
|>the number of choices that the individual can make for themself. In
both
|>situations of confinement, what is presented in the cafateria is
|>1) accepted as food, with what ever 'subchoice' is offered, or 2)
|>accepted as food, whatever is presented.
|>
|>If a restaurant offers no palatable choices, the patron is free to
leave,
|>even if that means that the patron will go hungery as there
|>may not be any other restaurant available. However, in the
|>case of the mental patient, I don't think the 'right of refusal'
|>exists, in the sense that the surrounding staff will not worry
|>about such a choice.
|>
|>Since I don't have any one who has been in an institution,
|>either jail or mental health, what is the current instituional
|>policy on vegetarian diets or if meat is eaten, avoiding
|>particular food types such as pork products, lard, etc,
|>which are not based on a medical indication, but
|>rather on the individual's personal beliefs, whether supported
|>by a particular religious group, or as an individual choice.
|>
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`''`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
Gene Douglas
|
|>In sci.psychology.psychotherapy Nancy Stone
<dans...@earthlink.net>
|wrote:
|>: Silke,
|>
|The aspect of being held against one's will, having no trial etc. is
not a
|factor in California, except for those who have committed crimes.
There is the more common case of those who are dangerous to themselves
or others.
There is
|no committment without court action in which the patient must be
represented
|by counsel. There are legal aid attorneys who take such cases.
Generally speaking, they just want to get them over with.
I know how
|difficult it is to have someone remain in an institution because
family have
|fervently wished it but been unable to have it happen absent
presence of
|danger to the self or others.
|
cut
|>
|>But the main point discusses here is captivity against someone's
will --
|>and there are very few situations that compare to it. Besides
prison and
|>commitment I can think only of kidnapping and POV or concentration
camps.
|
cut
Gene Douglas
John Clark wrote in message ...
|
|
|and traveled in a bit more upscale circle. With divorce, she lost
|that 'level' and with 'what ever caused her mental illness' the
'friends'
|vacated as well.
I have had a number of clients who had in the past been diagnosed as
mentally ill, and prescribed various medications. Once they got rid
of a significant other, their symptoms disappeared.
Agent@Large
context of the criminal justice system, there are gross violations of
human rights and due process with regard to the mentally ill offender.
What good does pointing out the differences between a mental
institution and a prison when these differences are not pertinent. In
this case, the similarities of being "locked up" are extremely
salient. The differences are irrelevant. Lock up a person indefinitely
for being accused of a crime, who OTHERWISE would not be locked up,
simply because the accused has a mental illness is unconscionable.
That is the point, no matter how you twist the argument.
With all due respect, I find your comments offensive and insensitive,
only because I presume that you are intelligent and cannot believe
that you do not comprehend the real issue here.
Agent@Large
On Mon, 04 Jan 1999 07:09:27 GMT, "Nancy Stone"
<dans...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I repeat -- being institutionalized, even against one's will, is not the
>same as serving time or being in prison.
>
>Nancy
>
>
And I agree:
--A mentally competent criminal serves time in prison because
(1) he or she was accused of committing a crime, and was
(2) tried and convicted (=guilty) of committing a crime and
(3) knows when he or she will get out;
--A mentally disturbed person who hasn't been convicted of any crime
serves time in an institution only because
(1) he or she was accused (=NOT guilty) of committing a crime,
(2) happens to be diagnosed with a mental illness,
(3) did not get a trial, and
(4) hasn't a clue when he or she will get out.
Yes, they are not the same.
Agent@Large
Nancy Stone
Agent@Large wrote in message ...
>
><dans...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>I repeat -- being institutionalized, even against one's will, is not the
>>same as serving time or being in prison.
>>
>>Nancy
>>
>>
>And I agree:
>
>--A mentally competent criminal serves time in prison because
>(1) he or she was accused of committing a crime, and was
>(2) tried and convicted (=guilty) of committing a crime and
>(3) knows when he or she will get out;
>
>--A mentally disturbed person who hasn't been convicted of any crime
>serves time in an institution only because
>(1) he or she was accused (=NOT guilty) of committing a crime,
>(2) happens to be diagnosed with a mental illness,
>(3) did not get a trial, and
>(4) hasn't a clue when he or she will get out.
>
>Yes, they are not the same.
>
A person with a heart attack spends time, against his will, in a hospital
because he has a massive pain in his chest.
A person with schizophrenia spends time, against his will, in a hospital
because he has an illness that prevents him from conforming his behavior to
important rules of society (among other symptoms).
Neither individual has any clue if or when they will get out of the
hospital. Neither did anything wrong to be there. Both are suffering.
The main difference is that the behavior of the person placed in the mental
institution is a symptom of the illness, whereas pain and loss of physical
functioning is the symptom for the heart patient.
It would be a punishment to place a well person in either type of
environment, mental hospital or heart-ICU.
The fact of having committed a crime, or being accused of having done so, is
incidental to the person's illness which has led to their being placed in
the institution. If the person's illness continues indefinitely, then their
need for treatment also continues. Why should they be released if their
need for care continues? If they get better and are ready to leave, the
remaining legal problems related to the crime will be only one of many
practical matters that will need resolution.
The only way this can be offensive is if one assumes the mentally ill person
is not mentally ill.
Nancy
John Clark
Gene Douglas wrote:
> I have had a number of clients who had in the past been diagnosed as
> mentally ill, and prescribed various medications. Once they got rid
> of a significant other, their symptoms disappeared.
In my friend's case it was just the opposite. Her inability to cope became
apparent after having been left with 5 children and upscale but deadbeat
father and husband. Her youngest daughter was accidentally run over
and 'survived' massive brain damage. Blame of course was placed
on the mother in terms of the ensuing custody battle which the woman's
sister joined the father in developing the picture of an unfit mother.
(During the five year period that I lived with this woman and we
would make periodic visits to the home were the injured daughter
lived, the logs indicated that the father did not visit.)
At some point she cracked. Later the sister and my friend were both
institutionalized, and in asking about 'the family' apparently the mother
of the two women would every year or two spend 2 or 3 months with
'relatives in Oregon'. Whether this was just for the purpose of visiting,
or the mother had 'symptoms' which in that day and age were
often dealt with in a family by 'relocating' termporarily, I don't know.
But my suspicion is that the mental 'illness' factor may have been
part of the 'family picture'.
Agent@Large
<dans...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>Tim McNamara wrote in message ...
>>In article <SPPM9901040...@cmhcsys.cmhc.com>, Nancy Stone
>><dans...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I repeat -- being institutionalized, even against one's will, is not the
>>> same as serving time or being in prison.
>>
>>In theory perhaps, the difference being that the primary purpose of a
>>prison is punishment whereas the putative purpose of a state hospital
>>is treatment. Unfortunately the differences are more a matter of
>>semantics than truth.
>>
>>It makes little difference to the committed person whether they are in
>>prison or in a forensic hospital. Indeed, inmates in prison have
>>greater protections for their civil rights than do people involuntarily
>>committed to a mental institution. Besides that, prison inmates know
>>when they are going to be released; people committed to hospitals do
>>not. On the whole, incarceration may be preferable than involuntary
>>committment from the perspective of the person on the inside.
>>
>
>
>It would have made a big difference to John Salvi if he had been in a mental
>hospital instead of in prison. Although schizophrenic, he received no
>treatment in prison and ultimately committed suicide despite the warnings of
>his family and their repeated pleas that he be treated. If he had been in a
>mental hospital, he most likely would not only have received some treatment
>but also been put on suicide watch. That means he would perhaps not now be
>dead. To me, that is a big difference, perhaps not in quality of life, but
>certainly in terms of life itself. Why did this happen? Because so many
>people were outraged by the crime he committed that they did not care
>whether he was appropriately treated but wished instead for retribution.
>Despite his mental illness, many were pleased when he died, just as people
>were pleased when Jeffrey Dahmer was killed in prison.
>
>Nancy
Nancy, this is an altogether different issue - you are now talking
about placing CONVICTED people who are mentally ill in prison. While
this is another rather serious problem, it is hardly related to the
issue of locking up the mentally ill person who has only been
*accused* (read: NOT CONVICTED=NOT GUILTY) of committing a crime, and
with the *accusation* being the sole reason for his or her detainment.
If you want to change the subject, that is fine by me, but I hope you
are not trying to establish that both these instances are related in
any significant way. They are not, in my opinion..
sara...@my-dejanews.com
mean? If not, you can still keep the thrust of your argument and admit the
"other side" has a point. I see that as being more rational than forcing the
argument to an extreme. You are making good points--you don't have to win
this argument.
Having been institutionalized against my will, I can tell you there is nothing
like having your civil rights taken away from you. However you want to name
that or categorize it is irrelevant.
I also agree that mentally ill people are not served by being dumped--with no
resources---out of institutions. What was sold as liberalization and better
conditions for mentally ill people was coopted by those who just didn't want
to spend money on them. Surely there is an alternative.
I just thank my lucky stars that I'm a mentally ill person who got good (but
still something to complain about!)help, stayed out of trouble, and leads a
minimally middle class existence. I have the freedom to go outside when I
want, eat at restaurants, etc. etc. Yes, I conform to some extent, by going
to a stupid job 8 hours per day, and other things.
Well, anyway, it's not an either or problem....
Saragale
In article <SPPM990105...@cmhcsys.cmhc.com>,
--
Saragale
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`''`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
Agent@Large
<dans...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>Agent@Large wrote in message ...
>>This has not appeared on my newsserver, so I am re-submitting it.
>>
>>On Mon, 04 Jan 1999 07:09:27 GMT, "Nancy Stone"
>><dans...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>I repeat -- being institutionalized, even against one's will, is not the
>>>same as serving time or being in prison.
>>>
>>>Nancy
>>>
>>>
>>And I agree:
>>
>>--A mentally competent criminal serves time in prison because
>>(1) he or she was accused of committing a crime, and was
>>(2) tried and convicted (=guilty) of committing a crime and
>>(3) knows when he or she will get out;
>>
>>--A mentally disturbed person who hasn't been convicted of any crime
>>serves time in an institution only because
>>(1) he or she was accused (=NOT guilty) of committing a crime,
>>(2) happens to be diagnosed with a mental illness,
>>(3) did not get a trial, and
>>(4) hasn't a clue when he or she will get out.
>>
>>Yes, they are not the same.
>>
>
>
>A person with a heart attack spends time, against his will, in a hospital
>because he has a massive pain in his chest.
But this is true whether he is mentally ill or not. The issue I'm
talking about is one of discrimination against the mentally ill who
are accused of crimes.
>
>A person with schizophrenia spends time, against his will, in a hospital
>because he has an illness that prevents him from conforming his behavior to
>important rules of society (among other symptoms).
False. He must be a danger to himself or others. Failing to conform
his behavior to important rules of society, even with other symptoms,
is not sufficient to involuntarily commit the individual in an
institution!
>
>Neither individual has any clue if or when they will get out of the
>hospital.
True only in the first case (i.e., the heart attack patient); the
person with schizophrenia shouldn't be institutionalized at all
against his will if he wasn't a danger to himself or others.
> Neither did anything wrong to be there. Both are suffering.
Only the heart attack patient should be there
>The main difference is that the behavior of the person placed in the mental
>institution is a symptom of the illness, whereas pain and loss of physical
>functioning is the symptom for the heart patient.
The main difference is that there is no ethical justification for the
person with schizophrenia to be there against his will.
>
>It would be a punishment to place a well person in either type of
>environment, mental hospital or heart-ICU.
So, are you advocating the involuntary institutionalization of people
with mental disorders? Last time I looked, this should only be done
with those who are a danger to themselves or others.
>
>The fact of having committed a crime, or being accused of having done so, is
>incidental to the person's illness which has led to their being placed in
>the institution.
You have this backwards. The people I'm talking about would NOT be
institutionalized if they were NOT accused of a crime. Being accused
of committing a crime is NOT incidental - it is the MAIN REASON that
the person is locked up indefinitely. This person is mentally ill but
presented NO danger to himself or others; then he's accused of a crime
and he's institutionalized indefinitely with no trial and no
conviction - how do you justify this?
> If the person's illness continues indefinitely, then their
>need for treatment also continues.
Need for INVOLUNTARY treatment is justified ONLY if the person is a
danger to himself or others.
> Why should they be released if their
>need for care continues?
Need for INVOLUNTARY treatment is justified ONLY if the person is a
danger to himself or others.
> If they get better and are ready to leave, the
>remaining legal problems related to the crime will be only one of many
>practical matters that will need resolution.
In the meantime, it's okay to deprive this person of due process, as
guaranteed by the Constitution?
>
>The only way this can be offensive is if one assumes the mentally ill person
>is not mentally ill.
I see it as offensive because you seem to advocate
(1) that the mentally ill do not have the same rights, privileges and
legal protections that you have; and
(2) that it is appropriate for a mentally ill person, who is not a
danger to himself or others, to be institutionalized against his will.
Gene Douglas
Agent@Large wrote in message ...
|<dans...@earthlink.net> wrote:
|
|>
|>Tim McNamara wrote in message ...
|>>In article <SPPM9901040...@cmhcsys.cmhc.com>, Nancy Stone
|>><dans...@earthlink.net> wrote:
|>>
|>>> I repeat -- being institutionalized, even against one's will, is
not the
|>>> same as serving time or being in prison.
|>>
|*accused* (read: NOT CONVICTED=NOT GUILTY) of committing a crime,
and
|with the *accusation* being the sole reason for his or her
detainment.
|If you want to change the subject, that is fine by me, but I hope
you
|are not trying to establish that both these instances are related in
|any significant way. They are not, in my opinion..
As you note, this is a change of subject. However, it remains a major
public failing to desire a victim for their anger. A mentally ill
person who commits a crime is like a wheelbarrow that rolls down a
hill and kills somebody. We may be angry that such a thing could
happen, but we don't destroy the wheelbarrow. Likewise, a big dog
that causes a serious injury is not merely de-fanged and sent to live
in the country, but destroyed, apparently to satisfy somebody's need
for vengance.
I have never made the argument that, because prison might be more
livable than a hospital, that the mentally ill should be placed in
prisons. I have said that placing an accused person in a hospital is
not a very nice thing to do, if he has no chance of leaving. And
also, there was the original complaint about pedophiles being the only
ones who are penalized for what they "might" do.
End discrimination against LPC's and LMFT's.
Contact: http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/3616
Gene Douglas
Agent@Large wrote in message ...
|>>
|>><dans...@earthlink.net> wrote:
|>>
|>>>I repeat -- being institutionalized, even against one's will, is
not the
|>>>same as serving time or being in prison.
|>>>
|>>>
|>>>
cut
|>
|>A person with schizophrenia spends time, against his will, in a
hospital
|>because he has an illness that prevents him from conforming his
behavior to
|>important rules of society (among other symptoms).
|
|False. He must be a danger to himself or others. Failing to conform
|his behavior to important rules of society, even with other
symptoms,
|is not sufficient to involuntarily commit the individual in an
|institution!
|>
|>Neither individual has any clue if or when they will get out of the
|>hospital.
|
|True only in the first case (i.e., the heart attack patient); the
|person with schizophrenia shouldn't be institutionalized at all
|against his will if he wasn't a danger to himself or others.
|
The heart attack patient will leave when he dies or gets well. If he
isn't getting any better, he with either be cared for at home, or in a
nursing home, but he has the right to choose.
The schizophrenic will leave when he dies or gets well, but if he
doesn't get any better, then the question becomes, "what is the
hospital doing for him?" Unlike the heart attack patient, continued
captivity is no longer for his own good. And it is not his choice.
It is for protection of the public, and there are issues like: does
the public need to be protected from him? How does anybody know? Has
he actually committed a crime? How will it ever be decided?
|> Neither did anything wrong to be there. Both are suffering.
|
cut
|
|So, are you advocating the involuntary institutionalization of
people
|with mental disorders? Last time I looked, this should only be done
|with those who are a danger to themselves or others.
It does appear that the present system could be improved upon. I
would think that inability to care for one's self might be a standard,
and the period of hospitalization might be limited to 30 days, about
as long as it takes for medication to be effective. Inability to
avoid committing misdemeanors might be another, such that defecation
on a downtown sidewalk would be a behavior one might be expected to
avoid.
|>
Remainder snipped. When I was a freshman, I used to believe that
society ought to be run by Ph.D.'s. Oh, how wrong I was.
Agent@Large
>cut
I think we run into some problems when we start to institutionalize
people "for their own good." If one's ability to care for himself is
so limited that it presents a danger to himself, then there is no
question that the person requires care in "a least restrictive
environment" - including an institution if appropriate - against his
will. However, there are many who take care of themselves poorly and
do strange things in public. We don't like their behavior (e.g., they
smell bad or they talk to themselves). They could benefit from a
social worker who could monitor their living situation and assist the
person with hygiene, grocery shopping, budgeting, etc. But what if the
person refuses? There is some behavior that society must accept as
long as the behavior isn't against the law or dangerous. Defecating on
a public sidewalk breaks some law, I'm sure. What if the convicted
person is mentally retarded? Should he be given a life sentence in a
mental institution for defecating on a sidewalk? It's pretty certain
he won't "get well" from his condition. What if the person suffers
from schizophrenia? Should he spend 5 years or more in an institution
if he doesn't get well for defecating on a sidewalk? This individual
(mentally ill or mentally retarded) should have his day in court as
any other person. If not competent to cooperate with an attorney, or
unable to understand the nature of the charges against him (as
determined by a court ordered psychological or psychiatric
evaluation), the Court should appoint a legal guardian as well as a
Public Defender for the accused. If the person is found "guilty," the
judge should take into account the aforementioned evaluations for dis
positional purposes. If punitive consequences (e.g., a jail term) are
rejected because it was determined that the person cannot comprehend
the reason for the punishment, perhaps a probationary period with
Social Services monitoring could be implemented. This could be court
ordered. Even out-patient mental health services may be court ordered.
If the person still refuses treatment and/or monitoring, then
institutionalization for a period of time commensurate with both the
crime and the person's state of mind could be the ultimate sentence.
The point of this example is that the person received a fair and
timely trial and due process was not denied to him simply because he
had a mental illness or was developmentally delayed.
>When I was a freshman, I used to believe that
>society ought to be run by Ph.D.'s. Oh, how wrong I was.
Uh...how about doctoral students? <g>
Mark Morin
> I see people here advocating that the mentally ill be shot with bean bags
> instead of bullets when they choose to attack a police officer with a
> machete. If they are to be treated the same as everyone else, there is no
> need for bean bags or for ride-along psychologists, or for any other special
> intervention at the scene of the crime, unless such interventions are
> appropriate for all people regardless of mental state.
If this is an illusion to me, I am advocating that people be treated
justly--not equally. The illusion of equality in our society is just
that--an illusion. Treating people equally would ignore any and all
mitigating circumstances; the twelve year old who picks up a gun and
shoots a friend while not understanding the concept of death would be
treated the same as the axe murderers in our society.
To value the fundamental dignity of each and every human being is to
acknowledge that each human being has different needs, has different
resources from which to draw; and have varying degrees of competence.
To evaluate the behavior of someone who is acting because of voices
telling him to act in the same manner as someone without those voices
may be equal but it is far from just. To treat someone who is weilding
a machete and running away from you in panic the same as someone with
that machete intending to harm you may be understandable and "equal" but
it is far from just. To respond to a psychiatric emergency in the same
way as one responds to a criminal call may be equal but it is far from
just.
I was taught to believe that we lived in a society that was just and
that when I see injustice it is up to me to name it.
> Most police forces
> make the decision that the officers are just guys doing a job and that they
> should not be placed in excess jeopardy to do it.
I do not know where you are getting your data. While your description
may fit state police departments it has been my experience that it is
not descriptive of community police. I believe that if you are
responding to a neighbor's call or to the parent of someone you went to
school with, or to any number of possible connections that may exist in
a community, you will respond differently than if these were anonymous
faces.
> That means that they are not expected to treat kindly those who attack them
> with machetes or to risk their lives in subduing them.
If human life is important--all human life, not just the healthy and
wealthy and wise, I would expect those lives to be valued. That would
mean that lethal force would be used as an absolute last means of
resort. But, it's easier to pull a gun and out of fear shoot than it is
to act out of concern.
> Further, they are not expected to decide under pressure of assault who is
> mentally ill and who is not.
But when they get a call telling them that there is a schizophrenic
patient that needs to be brought in for evaluation, that call has
already been made for them.
> Nor are they expected to take a neighbor's or relative's word for who is
> dangerous and who is not in a volatile situation.
Nancy, I have profound respect for your skills as a researcher and a
teacher. Your behavior in this thread clearly demonstrates that you
don't have a clue of what you are talking about when it comes to these
particular clinical issues.
If you as an officer are told that a family member or relative can act
as a calming influence on the person you are being called to bring in,
knowing also that this person has a history of responding violently to
police, is it not incumbant upon you to act in such a way as to minimize
the possibility of harm.
> The courts have determined that there exists a responsibility to protect
> those who are incompetent from the legal consequences of their incompetence.
> To do that, it is necessary to decide who is competent and who is not.
> Permitting someone to waive their right to such protection (and thus skip
> such evaluation) is inconsistent with protecting them. If someone cannot be
> made sufficiently competent to stand trial, on what basis can they be set
> free? Are they to be assumed innocent regardless of the evidence against
> them? The presumption of innocence refers only to burden of proof during a
> trial, not to whether someone is granted bail or released before that trial
> has taken place. Risk of flight and harm to others is carefully considered
> when granting bail to accused individuals who are not mentally ill. Why
> should the mentally ill be given special treatment when it comes to that
> evaluation?
No one has asked for or suggested that there should be "special
treatment." What has been said is that the treatment that the mentally
ill receive is as severe as and often longer in duration than a
convicted felon. You have adamently denied this. I suggest you spend
some extended time on a forensic unit.
> If they are released from competence evaluation, it is to
> prison and evaluation as an accused but sane individual (with all that
> entails during trial and at sentencing time), not to their family or home.
> Recall the Unabomer's brother's distress at the prospect that his brother
> would be permitted to waive mental status evaluation and be tried without
> mentioning his schizophrenia, because that would make him eligible for the
> death penalty. All this while the Kaczynski adamantly refused to let his
> attorneys describe him as mentally ill. The alternative is that he would be
> considered as someone behaving with full faculties, with full consequences
> applied after conviction. That is how Salvi wound up in prison untreated,
> because to treat him would be to admit that he was improperly tried as
> someone able to cooperate in his own defense and sane at the time he
> committed the crimes.
Mentally ill is not equivalent to insane. Salvi was mentally ill but
IIRC was evaluated as competent to stand trial. Also IIRC the lack of
treatment resulted from his refusal to take medication.
> People feared that labeling him schizophrenic and treating him would give
> him grounds for appeal.
The diagnosis of schizophrenia would not have automatically resulted in
a determination of incompetence and thus not an automatic grounds for
appeal.
> I've heard a lot of talk about rights to choose and right to freedom (not
> from you but from others in this thread). I've heard no discussion of the
> responsibility that goes with such rights. Laws, especially criminal codes,
> deal with people who fail to live up to their responsibilities as codified
> by our society. I would like to see some discussion of how the mentally ill
> granted freedom from involuntary treatment might be expected to fulfill
> their responsibilities to others. This is no less than is expected of
> everyone else.
No, it's no less than is expected of people like you. There are lots of
people in our society who are not like you. There are different
standards of what is acceptable for children as compared to adults.
Older demented adults are not held accountable for their behaviors in
the same way the rest of us are. Behaviors done under certain
physiological conditions (like epilepsy) are evaluated differently than
the same behavior done by a "normal" person.
> I cannot go along with according the mentally ill the right
> to unfettered freedom from restraint of any kind while there is concurrent
> exemption of the mentally ill from being held accountable for their actions.
So, is this to say that you are agreeing that involuntary committment is
equivalent to incarceration? That has been the focus of much of the
thread.
>
> Nancy
mark
--
===========================================================
If I had only.....
forgotten future greatness and looked at the green things
and the buildings and reached out to those around me and
smelled the air and ignored the forms and the self-styled
obligations and heard the rain on the roof
.......and it's not too late
Hugh Prather
Nancy Stone
Agent@Large wrote in message ...
snip
>Nancy, this is an altogether different issue - you are now talking
>about placing CONVICTED people who are mentally ill in prison. While
>this is another rather serious problem, it is hardly related to the
>issue of locking up the mentally ill person who has only been
>*accused* (read: NOT CONVICTED=NOT GUILTY) of committing a crime, and
>with the *accusation* being the sole reason for his or her detainment.
>If you want to change the subject, that is fine by me, but I hope you
>are not trying to establish that both these instances are related in
>any significant way. They are not, in my opinion..
>
Yes, I see your point, though I do not believe someone is evaluated solely
because they are detained. I think they are evaluated because they are
detained AND there is reason to believe they were not responsible for their
actions (such as a statement by themselves or their attorney to that effect
or the presence of symptoms). However, the bottom line is that someone is
either treated the same as everyone else or they are treated differently
because they are suspected of being mentally ill (in addition to being
suspected of a crime). If the mentally ill wish to have the same choices
and freedoms as those not mentally ill, then they must also receive the same
consequences and recognize the same responsibilities of citizenship (or
membership in a society).
I see people here advocating that the mentally ill be shot with bean bags
instead of bullets when they choose to attack a police officer with a
machete. If they are to be treated the same as everyone else, there is no
need for bean bags or for ride-along psychologists, or for any other special
intervention at the scene of the crime, unless such interventions are
appropriate for all people regardless of mental state. Most police forces
make the decision that the officers are just guys doing a job and that they
should not be placed in excess jeopardy to do it. That means that they are
not expected to treat kindly those who attack them with machetes or to risk
their lives in subduing them. Further, they are not expected to decide
under pressure of assault who is mentally ill and who is not. Nor are they
expected to take a neighbor's or relative's word for who is dangerous and
who is not in a volatile situation.
The courts have determined that there exists a responsibility to protect
those who are incompetent from the legal consequences of their incompetence.
To do that, it is necessary to decide who is competent and who is not.
Permitting someone to waive their right to such protection (and thus skip
such evaluation) is inconsistent with protecting them. If someone cannot be
made sufficiently competent to stand trial, on what basis can they be set
free? Are they to be assumed innocent regardless of the evidence against
them? The presumption of innocence refers only to burden of proof during a
trial, not to whether someone is granted bail or released before that trial
has taken place. Risk of flight and harm to others is carefully considered
when granting bail to accused individuals who are not mentally ill. Why
should the mentally ill be given special treatment when it comes to that
evaluation? If they are released from competence evaluation, it is to
prison and evaluation as an accused but sane individual (with all that
entails during trial and at sentencing time), not to their family or home.
Recall the Unabomer's brother's distress at the prospect that his brother
would be permitted to waive mental status evaluation and be tried without
mentioning his schizophrenia, because that would make him eligible for the
death penalty. All this while the Kaczynski adamantly refused to let his
attorneys describe him as mentally ill. The alternative is that he would be
considered as someone behaving with full faculties, with full consequences
applied after conviction. That is how Salvi wound up in prison untreated,
because to treat him would be to admit that he was improperly tried as
someone able to cooperate in his own defense and sane at the time he
committed the crimes. People feared that labeling him schizophrenic and
treating him would give him grounds for appeal.
I've heard a lot of talk about rights to choose and right to freedom (not
from you but from others in this thread). I've heard no discussion of the
responsibility that goes with such rights. Laws, especially criminal codes,
deal with people who fail to live up to their responsibilities as codified
by our society. I would like to see some discussion of how the mentally ill
granted freedom from involuntary treatment might be expected to fulfill
their responsibilities to others. This is no less than is expected of
everyone else. I cannot go along with according the mentally ill the right
to unfettered freedom from restraint of any kind while there is concurrent
exemption of the mentally ill from being held accountable for their actions.
Nancy
Nancy Stone
sara...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message ...
>Nancy, it seems like you are arguing for Fascism. Is that what you really
>mean?
Of course not. This is a complex problem and a nuanced discussion. Using
words like "fascism" don't help much. Our government interferes in many
aspects of our lives on an ongoing basis. The question here is not whether
control is appropriate, but whether this particular form of control is
necessary.
Our society recognizes the need for individuals to have both rights and
responsibilities. It also includes various forms of protection for both the
rights of the individual and the needs of society, achieving a balance
between the two. We should be thinking about what is being balanced off
against what in this situation, not global issues of control vs freedom or
the desires for freedom of specific individuals. As the famous line in
Marat/Sade goes "We're all normal and we want our freedom!" Most criminals
imprisoned after trial continue to assert their innocence. "We didn't do it
and we want our freedom!" Does that mean they should all be released? Why
not?
If not, you can still keep the thrust of your argument and admit the
>"other side" has a point. I see that as being more rational than forcing
the
>argument to an extreme. You are making good points--you don't have to win
>this argument.
I am not trying to win an argument, but rather to express an opinion and
explore various implications of what people are saying. People
understandably feel strongly about this topic. I do too.
Nancy
Gene Douglas
Agent@Large wrote in message ...
|On Tue, 05 Jan 1999 19:21:35 GMT, "Gene Douglas"
|<gene...@prodigy.net> wrote:
cut
AAL |> |So, are you advocating the involuntary institutionalization of
|> |people
|> |with mental disorders? Last time I looked, this should only be
done
|> |with those who are a danger to themselves or others.
|>
GD |>It does appear that the present system could be improved upon. I
|>would think that inability to care for one's self might be a
standard,
|>and the period of hospitalization might be limited to 30 days,
about
|>as long as it takes for medication to be effective. Inability to
|>avoid committing misdemeanors might be another, such that
defecation
|>on a downtown sidewalk would be a behavior one might be expected to
|>avoid.
|
|I think we run into some problems when we start to institutionalize
|people "for their own good." If one's ability to care for himself is
|so limited that it presents a danger to himself, then there is no
|question that the person requires care in "a least restrictive
|environment" - including an institution if appropriate - against his
|will.
If a person sleeps on a downtown sidewalk, he is prey to anybody who
happens to walk by. That may be a low-level danger, but it is a
danger to himself. If it rains, he could catch pneumonia, and in cold
weather, etc.
However, there are many who take care of themselves poorly and
|do strange things in public. We don't like their behavior (e.g.,
they
|smell bad or they talk to themselves). They could benefit from a
|social worker who could monitor their living situation and assist
the
|person with hygiene, grocery shopping, budgeting, etc. But what if
the
|person refuses?
I had a client like that last week. She could benefit from all kinds
of programs, some of which would send cash, some of which would give
her a place to live. However, she must qualify as having a
disability, and her very obvious disability is mental illness. And
she insists she has no mental illness. So she checks into one shelter
or another, wanders out again, a church gives her a place to live,
then she accuses church members of stealing worthless objects, the
church says she can't keep all that trash there, and she's out again.
A local congressman has a protective order against her.
Now, I'm not saying that she should be incarcerated, though it does
seem that if she took an antipsychotic medication for a month, she
might be able to make decisions, like applying for SSI, etc.
Meanwhile, if she is found sleeping in a park on a winter's night, I
believe that would be reason enough to say she is a danger to herself.
There is some behavior that society must accept as
|long as the behavior isn't against the law or dangerous. Defecating
on
|a public sidewalk breaks some law, I'm sure.
So do they fine a homeless person $25? Do they keep her in jail for
25 days until the fine is paid? If so, wouldn't 25 days in a hospital
do her more good?
What if the convicted
|person is mentally retarded? Should he be given a life sentence in a
|mental institution for defecating on a sidewalk?
If there were a statutory limit of 30 days, that would protect against
that possibility.
It's pretty certain
|he won't "get well" from his condition. What if the person suffers
|from schizophrenia? Should he spend 5 years or more in an
institution
|if he doesn't get well for defecating on a sidewalk? This individual
|(mentally ill or mentally retarded) should have his day in court as
|any other person. If not competent to cooperate with an attorney, or
|unable to understand the nature of the charges against him (as
|determined by a court ordered psychological or psychiatric
|evaluation), the Court should appoint a legal guardian as well as a
|Public Defender for the accused.
Now, we're talking about a misdemeanor. So we spend a thousand
dollars determining his mental status, and he is incompetent to stand
trial. Then what? Tell him to go and sin some more? Hospitalize him
until he is competent to come back and answer for his defecation, and
have another thousand dollar trial?
If the person is found "guilty," the
|judge should take into account the aforementioned evaluations for
dis
|positional purposes. If punitive consequences (e.g., a jail term)
are
|rejected because it was determined that the person cannot comprehend
|the reason for the punishment, perhaps a probationary period with
|Social Services monitoring could be implemented.
Social services should have the power to enforce medication, or he'll
just not bother to show up at their office.
This could be court
|ordered. Even out-patient mental health services may be court
ordered.
|If the person still refuses treatment and/or monitoring, then
|institutionalization for a period of time commensurate with both the
|crime and the person's state of mind could be the ultimate sentence.
This is the 30 days I was talking about.
|The point of this example is that the person received a fair and
|timely trial and due process was not denied to him simply because he
|had a mental illness or was developmentally delayed.
|
|>When I was a freshman, I used to believe that
|>society ought to be run by Ph.D.'s. Oh, how wrong I was.
|
|Uh...how about doctoral students? <g>
|
Do they get goofy after they graduate?
Tim McNamara
<dans...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> It would have made a big difference to John Salvi if he had been in a mental
> hospital instead of in prison. Although schizophrenic, he received no
> treatment in prison and ultimately committed suicide despite the warnings of
> his family and their repeated pleas that he be treated. If he had been in a
> mental hospital, he most likely would not only have received some treatment
> but also been put on suicide watch. That means he would perhaps not now be
> dead. To me, that is a big difference, perhaps not in quality of life, but
> certainly in terms of life itself. Why did this happen? Because so many
> people were outraged by the crime he committed that they did not care
> whether he was appropriately treated but wished instead for retribution.
> Despite his mental illness, many were pleased when he died, just as people
> were pleased when Jeffrey Dahmer was killed in prison.
Perhaps. Or perhaps he would have succeeded in killing himself in a
mental hospital. There have been several high-profile suicides in
local psychiatric units locally in the past decade.
I agree that it is likely that Salvi's mental state would have been
taken into consideration more readily in a psychiatric setting, simply
because the staff are geared to thinking in that way, but the prison
staff were equally culpable for negligence as would be a psychiatry
staff in the same situation.
OTOH, what treatment would he have received in the hospital?
Neuroleptics, almost certainly. Against his will, if "necessary," with
three or four aides holding him down while the nurse injects a few
mills of Haldol Decanoate into him once a week. ECT, possibly, if his
behavior was sufficiently annoying for the staff... and possbly against
his will again: held down, sedated, placed in the apparatus and an
electric current run through his brain.
In prison, Salvi would have had the right to bring a lawsuit against
the prison for neglect and maltreatment. He would have had the right
to an attorney and the right for his complaint to be tried without
delay, faster than non-incarcerated citizens can have *their* suits
heard by a judge. In the hospital, his request for a lawyer would have
been referred to the social worker, who would be too busy to get to it
today and maybe not tomorrow. Then, because he had no money, he would
be referred for pro bono services through Legal Aid. It would sit on
their desks for a while until some lawyer had some free time to do some
free work. In the mean time, he would still be held down for his
Haldol injections and still sedated and strapped down for his ECT
sessions.
I have heard enough stories of brutality by hospital staff to be of the
opinion that it is not markedly different, from the patient's point of
view, than prison. Or is thepatient's viewpoint invalid becuase they
are mentally ill? Do the mentally ill have a right to an opinion about
their treatment? Or are we really gods who know better than they do?
The essential element, IMHO, is that the inmate and the hospital
patient are in the same situation of relative powerlessness. The
safeguard protecting either the inmate or the patient is *only* the
conscience and the ethicality of the guard or the staff.
I certainly cannot advocate simply emptying the psychiatric hospitals,
as was attempted during the Reagan Politocracy with disastrous results.
There are many people with mental illnesses who would be a danger to
themselves or others; these people need to be protected and I don't
know of a better place than a psychiatric hospital for that need. I
don't think there are easy, convenient or guaranteed answers; I also
think that massive improvements need to be made to these institutions.
Agent@Large
It is not an "either-or" situation, as you seem to frame this
discussion. No one is saying the mentally ill should go free if they
commit a crime. No one is saying that the mentally ill should go free
if they are accused of committing a crime. You make it sound as if the
laws cannot accommodate special cases. This is not true. The courts
fully recognize the special issues regarding juveniles accused of
crimes and convicted juvenile offenders; I advocate similar
consideration with regard to the mentally ill and developmentally
delayed. It is ludicrous to suggest that mentally ill persons should
be subjected to the exact same procedures and dispositions as the
average person by the criminal justice system. Our foundation of law
is based on the accused having intent, knowing right from wrong, the
ability to understand consequences, etc. What does imprisonment do for
someone who doesn't understand he's being punished for a specific
behavior? Hell, the State won't even execute somebody if they suspect
the condemned inmate suffers from mental illness while on death row.
I am not saying a mentally ill person who commits a crime should not
be locked up against his will; perhaps this is necessary for public
safety. But I *am* saying he should have his day in court and enjoy
the same guarantee of due process as you or I.
Agent@Large
<sm...@umich.edu> wrote:
>In sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Agent@Large <ag...@ie-com.com> wrote:
>: It is ludicrous to suggest that mentally ill persons should
>: be subjected to the exact same procedures and dispositions as the
>: average person by the criminal justice system.
>
>But it is not ludicrous (though controversial and legitimate object of
>argument) to say that mentally ill people should be able to chose to be
>subjected to the exact same procedures. Especially if it gets them two
>years in prison instead of a lifetime in a mental hospital.
This is what a court appointed Legal Guardian, working with the
accused, and the attorney for the accused, would decide.
>
>[...]
>
>: I am not saying a mentally ill person who commits a crime should not
>: be locked up against his will; perhaps this is necessary for public
>: safety.
>
>This discussion would greatly improve if we could all refrain from
>statements that imply that "mentally ill person" is an adequate term to
>cover the great variety of mental illness. It might be a bit cumbersome
>but still worth the trouble to replace "the mentally ill" or the generic
>singular with formulations like "in some cases" or to take recourse
>to formulations like "some forms of mental illness." Otherwise, you're
>losing precisely the flexibility that the complexity of the questions
>discussed here demands.
Point taken. Certain forms of mental illness do not significantly
impair one's ability to distinguish right from wrong, nor impair one's
ability to cooperate with one's attorney. These are, in general, the
usual standards applied in forensic cases.
>
>
>: But I *am* saying he should have his day in court and enjoy
>: the same guarantee of due process as you or I.
>
>But you should be clear that you are willing to stand for the consequences
>of your position as well.
>
>smw
Are you suggesting that I am not clear about being willing to accept
the consequences of my position? In what way or ways have I been
equivocal or ambivalent about my acceptance of the consequences of due
process for ALL people, including those "with some forms of mental
illness" and with developmental disabilities? I am convinced that my
position is morally and ethically justified, more consistent with the
Constitution than the present criminal justice system regarding this
population, and feasible, as well. However, I am old enough to
acknowledge that no social system is perfect.
Tim McNamara
<j1c...@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> Since I don't have any one who has been in an institution,
> either jail or mental health, what is the current instituional
> policy on vegetarian diets or if meat is eaten, avoiding
> particular food types such as pork products, lard, etc,
> which are not based on a medical indication, but
> rather on the individual's personal beliefs, whether supported
> by a particular religious group, or as an individual choice.
In nursing homes, at least, U.S. Federal law requires food preferences
be taken into account and accomodated. Residents who are vegetarian,
for example, are entitled to be served vegetarian food (even
recognizing that fish isn't a vegetable, in the case of vegans).
Residents with religious dietary requirements must likewise be
accomodated. Even simple individual preference must be accomodated.
Gene Douglas
Mark Morin wrote in message <3692D677...@idt.net>...
|Nancy Stone wrote:
|
|> I see people here advocating that the mentally ill be shot with
bean bags
|> instead of bullets when they choose to attack a police officer
with a
|> machete. If they are to be treated the same as everyone else,
there is no
|> need for bean bags or for ride-along psychologists, or for any
other special
|> intervention at the scene of the crime, unless such interventions
are
|> appropriate for all people regardless of mental state.
|
|If this is an illusion to me, I am advocating that people be treated
|justly--not equally.
Unfortunately, in a fast moving situation with limited information, a
policeman can not know what is just.
The illusion of equality in our society is just
|that--an illusion. Treating people equally would ignore any and all
|mitigating circumstances; the twelve year old who picks up a gun and
|shoots a friend while not understanding the concept of death would
be
|treated the same as the axe murderers in our society.
|
cut
|
|I was taught to believe that we lived in a society that was just and
|that when I see injustice it is up to me to name it.
|
|> Most police forces
|> make the decision that the officers are just guys doing a job and
that they
|> should not be placed in excess jeopardy to do it.
|
cut
|
|> That means that they are not expected to treat kindly those who
attack them
|> with machetes or to risk their lives in subduing them.
|
|If human life is important--all human life, not just the healthy and
|wealthy and wise, I would expect those lives to be valued. That
would
|mean that lethal force would be used as an absolute last means of
|resort. But, it's easier to pull a gun and out of fear shoot than
it is
|to act out of concern.
A policeman sees a person acting in a certain way. He only knows what
information he has received at the moment. If the person appears to
have a gun, and appears to be pointing it at somebody, that is what he
knows. If the person appears to be menacing the policeman or somebody
else, that is what he knows. If the person is trying to take the
policewoman's gun from her, and is stronger than she is, that is what
she knows. Even if he has been told that the person is mentally ill,
if the person appears to be an immediate danger to others, that is the
situation he has to deal with.
|
|> Further, they are not expected to decide under pressure of assault
who is
|> mentally ill and who is not.
|
|But when they get a call telling them that there is a schizophrenic
|patient that needs to be brought in for evaluation, that call has
|already been made for them.
Even if they know the person is schizophrenic, they may not be free to
take him gently by the arms and ask him to come with them. He may be
running around with a weapon in his hand, or holding somebody hostage.
|
|> Nor are they expected to take a neighbor's or relative's word for
who is
|> dangerous and who is not in a volatile situation.
|
|Nancy, I have profound respect for your skills as a researcher and a
|teacher. Your behavior in this thread clearly demonstrates that you
|don't have a clue of what you are talking about when it comes to
these
|particular clinical issues.
And I have the same impression about you.
|
|If you as an officer are told that a family member or relative can
act
|as a calming influence on the person you are being called to bring
in,
|knowing also that this person has a history of responding violently
to
|police, is it not incumbant upon you to act in such a way as to
minimize
|the possibility of harm.
|
And if this is not the case, then none of that applies. It reminds me
of Mayor Daily in Chicago, telling police to shoot at demonstrators to
hit them in the arm or leg.
|
|> The courts have determined that there exists a responsibility to
protect
|> those who are incompetent from the legal consequences of their
incompetence.
|> To do that, it is necessary to decide who is competent and who is
not.
And often that can be done only after the action in the street is
over.
|> Permitting someone to waive their right to such protection (and
thus skip
|> such evaluation) is inconsistent with protecting them. If someone
cannot be
|> made sufficiently competent to stand trial, on what basis can they
be set
|> free? Are they to be assumed innocent regardless of the evidence
against
|> them?
Actually, in California (which you may have heard of) there is a
safety valve, for at least some of the accused. They can be tried
while incompetent, on the condition that only a not guilty verdict is
allowed. If that is not possible, they are considered not to have yet
been tried.
The presumption of innocence refers only to burden of proof during a
|> trial, not to whether someone is granted bail or released before
that trial
|> has taken place. Risk of flight and harm to others is carefully
considered
|> when granting bail to accused individuals who are not mentally
ill. Why
|> should the mentally ill be given special treatment when it comes
to that
|> evaluation?
Of course, a clinical evaluation does not come until after the
arraignment.
|
|No one has asked for or suggested that there should be "special
|treatment." What has been said is that the treatment that the
mentally
|ill receive is as severe as and often longer in duration than a
|convicted felon. You have adamently denied this. I suggest you
spend
|some extended time on a forensic unit.
|
I am suggesting rational treatment, with consideration that the
mentally ill are human beings, too, and it could happen to you or me
or one of our family.
|> If they are released from competence evaluation, it is to
|> prison and evaluation as an accused but sane individual (with all
that
|> entails during trial and at sentencing time), not to their family
or home.
|> Recall the Unabomer's brother's distress at the prospect that his
brother
|> would be permitted to waive mental status evaluation and be tried
without
|> mentioning his schizophrenia, because that would make him eligible
for the
|> death penalty. All this while the Kaczynski adamantly refused to
let his
|> attorneys describe him as mentally ill.
There is the paradox. How can the mentally ill properly decide
whether they should be regarded as mentally ill? What happens if a
mentally well person does the same, but against his will is described
as mentally ill?
The alternative is that he would be
|> considered as someone behaving with full faculties, with full
consequences
|> applied after conviction. That is how Salvi wound up in prison
untreated,
|> because to treat him would be to admit that he was improperly
tried as
|> someone able to cooperate in his own defense and sane at the time
he
|> committed the crimes.
This is also what happened to the black guy in New York, who was
shooting people in a train. The court pronounced him sane, and he
"defended" himself in court. As both a poor lawyer and a poor client,
he lost his case.
|
|Mentally ill is not equivalent to insane. Salvi was mentally ill
but
|IIRC was evaluated as competent to stand trial. Also IIRC the lack
of
|treatment resulted from his refusal to take medication.
I don't know how that happened, but evaluation in advance could have
resulted in his being forced to take medication.
|
|> People feared that labeling him schizophrenic and treating him
would give
|> him grounds for appeal.
|
|The diagnosis of schizophrenia would not have automatically resulted
in
|a determination of incompetence and thus not an automatic grounds
for
|appeal.
However, often lawyers will try anything. People in the hospital
where I worked just shook their heads when they saw the name of one
psychiatrist in a file, because they knew that he routinely declared
anybody who heard voices to be incompetent. Quite often a person can
hear voices, and at the same time know exactly what is going on around
him, and know exactly what he is doing.
But there isn't, you see.
|
|So, is this to say that you are agreeing that involuntary
committment is
|equivalent to incarceration? That has been the focus of much of the
|thread.
Incarceration: "In" meaning inside. "carc" meaning flesh. "ation"
meaning a process. A process of keeping the body inside. Call it
captivity if you wish. Quibbling about a word changes absolutely
nothing about what happens to a person.
Agent@Large
<gene...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>Agent@Large wrote in message ...
<snip>
> |>When I was a freshman, I used to believe that
> |>society ought to be run by Ph.D.'s. Oh, how wrong I was.
> |Uh...how about doctoral students? <g>
>Do they get goofy after they graduate?
I hope so; I always hated that Disney cartoon character!
Gene Douglas
Silke-Maria Weineck wrote in message ...
|In sci.psychology.psychotherapy Nancy Stone
<dans...@earthlink.net> wrote:
|:>
|:>Nancy Stone wrote in message ...
not
|:>the
|:> |same as serving time or being in prison.
|:> |
|:> |Nancy
|:>No, it is worse. I have worked in both places, and I'd take a
prison
|:>over a mental hospital any day. Mental patients have even fewer
|
|
|: You confuse the effects of the mental illness itself with the
effects of
|: being in any sort of institution.
|
|
|You also
|: confuse the need to keep someone safe from himself and others with
the
|: intent to limit freedom.
|
of the spectrum or another. The fact is, I realize the need for
problem solving. I know that if a mentally ill person is accused of
commiting a crime, somebody must figure out what to do with him.
I also realize that most of them have indeed commited an illegal act,
and most of them do clear up and become competent to stand trial. And
some people are obviously dangerous, and do not have the capability of
even pretending to be otherwise. I do have a problem with those who
slip through the cracks.
No, I don't believe officials conspire to do it badly. But I do
believe that a bureaucracy is a great, lumbering beast, and so is a
government. It suffers from inertia, and from clumsiness. And I
believe that when officials get a close up look at what is happening,
they realize that they can't individually change it. And then they
look at their paychecks and their possible promotions, and don't do
much to try.
I responded initially to somebody who thought that convicted
pedophiles were treated harshly, because they are labeled for life,
based on what they might do in the future, and since this is based on
their "thinking" or "feelings," they are doing life for thought crime,
according to that poster.
All I can say to that is, "join the club." Schizophrenics and
bipolars have been doing that for a while. They are imprisoned (bail
doesn't apply here) not to be sure that they show up in court, but
partly to protect the public, and partly to force them to become
mentally well. If the procedure doesn't work, then they find
themselves in the position of the poor pedophile, mentioned above.
And if they are found not guilty due to insanity, and are returned to
the hospital, and never clear up, then they are kept until declared
"not dangerous." Again, they are in the same legal position as the
pedophile, who the poster apparently believed had "paid his debt."
|I think you're assuming too much here when you speak of "need" --
'desire'
|or 'intent' might be a better choice.
| I think these are matters of subtlety and gradation -- in the end,
|I think people do have a right to lead messy miserable uncared-for
lives
|if that is what they want, and as long as they do not pose a threat
to
|others.
The paradox is that they don't have the capability to "know" what to
want. If they were taking Haldol or something, they might want
something else. But if you could force them to take it, then other
people who are merely eccentric might be next. The pendulum has swung
from Old Uncle Harry being hospitalized so the relatives could get
their hands on his money, to people having a right to sleep on the
sidewalk, if they don't want to go indoors.
I don't think you can make a case that everybody in these
|institutions were a danger to others if let free.
In a forensic hospital, you could say that for a majority.
|
| In mental institutions the amount of restraint is
|: related to the symptoms of the illness and the patient's behavior,
not the
|: fact of having committed a crime. The restraints you deplore may
enhance a
|: mental patients sense of safety for all you know.
|
|Or may not. Conditions are bad many places, and whether some staff
|members are overworked, underpaid, underqualified and undertrained
or just nasty by
| inclination is hard to establish, but it might be a good idea to
address
|conditions as they actually are not as a PR editor might describe
them.
Hospital aides are selected for their willingness to work cheaply.
That means they could also get a job flipping burgers or sweeping
floors if they wanted to. Their level of smarts and education make
them able to carry out simple routines. Many see beating the crap out
of a patient as a reasonable means of control. Patients have a right
to file a grievance, but at the hospital I worked at, there were
regular memos intended to improve staff morale, telling them not to
worry about it, nearly all grievances were overruled, anyway.
cut
|: You forget that people can feel better, less anxious, with rules
and
|: constraints.
|
The constraint I had in mind was mainly just being there. And of
course, I added a number of other freedoms, to the effect that a
hospital isn't necessarily a nicer place than a prison.
|But the emphasis is on "can." I don't like the implicit assumption
above
|that the mentally ill are so fundamentally different from "us" as to
|fundamentally change their reactions to involuntary confinement and
a host
|of indignities we would never put up with can be redefined like. My
|brother has been in and out for many years, and he never got used to
it or
|felt relieved that someone finally shot him full of Haldol again
(against
|the explicit instructions on his chart). If anything, he felt the
loss of
|freedom more acutely and experienced more terror and fright than I
might
|have in a similar situation.
|
People who are somewhat alert respond to the sense of total loss of
rights in a hospital and talk at length about it later. This is more
likely to be a state than a private hospital, except where kids are
concerned. If you are the least uncooperative (not necessarily
violent) 5 to 10 people may appear and grab every part of your body,
shoot you with Haldol and shove you in a room. Haldol is not being
used as a treatment in that case, it is being used as a means of
control.
One problem with anti-psychotic medications is that they don't feel
good. Consequently, it is reasonable to start with the least
effective dose, and work up until you find a level that is sufficient.
Where I worked, they started with the maximum dose, to get them calmed
down. (Staff convenience and working conditions) This created
aversive conditioning, and the patient hated the stuff from then on.
As soon as he left the hospital, he would get off his meds, and would
return a few months later (to that hospital or another one) and cost
the taxpayers boucou bucks per day, because the staff was more
interested in quiet patients than in treating patients.
Agent@Large
<gene...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>Agent@Large wrote in message ...
> ...What if the person suffers
> |from schizophrenia? Should he spend 5 years or more in an
>institution
> |if he doesn't get well for defecating on a sidewalk? This individual
> |(mentally ill or mentally retarded) should have his day in court as
> |any other person. If not competent to cooperate with an attorney, or
> |unable to understand the nature of the charges against him (as
> |determined by a court ordered psychological or psychiatric
> |evaluation), the Court should appoint a legal guardian as well as a
> |Public Defender for the accused.
>
>Now, we're talking about a misdemeanor. So we spend a thousand
>dollars determining his mental status, and he is incompetent to stand
>trial.
One of our duties at the Monroe County Mental Health Clinic for
Socio-Legal Services in Rochester was to conduct diagnostic screening
interviews of inmates suspected of being mental ill or developmentally
disabled. These took about a half hour on the average. They were
screenings, not full psychological evaluations. I think in many
misdemeanor cases, these would suffice.
>Then what?
Then I would suggest a Hearing, with a Court appointed Legal Guardian
(not to be confused with a Law Guardian) and a Court appointed Public
Defender (assuming the person could not afford an attorney).
Then the trial (or dispositional hearing if the person, with the help
and advice of his legal guardian and attorney, agree to plead guilty).
> Tell him to go and sin some more? Hospitalize him
>until he is competent to come back and answer for his defecation, and
>have another thousand dollar trial?
None of the above, since he is now either "guilty" or "not guilty."
If he is convicted, a sentence commensurate with the crime AND the his
state of mind should be imposed.
Nancy Stone
Gene Douglas wrote in message
snip
> |No one has asked for or suggested that there should be "special
> |treatment." What has been said is that the treatment that the
>mentally
> |ill receive is as severe as and often longer in duration than a
> |convicted felon. You have adamently denied this. I suggest you
>spend
> |some extended time on a forensic unit.
No, I have not adamantly denied this. I have not denied it at all.
I have been suggesting that the time spent in treatment is beneficial to the
mentally ill, whether they are there voluntarily or not. I have also been
suggesting that I don't see good alternatives to this practice of requiring
that mentally ill individuals stay in treatment until they are no longer a
danger to themselves or others.
Nancy
Gene Douglas
Nancy Stone wrote in message
|> |treatment." What has been said is that the treatment that the
|>mentally
|> |ill receive is as severe as and often longer in duration than a
|> |convicted felon. You have adamently denied this. I suggest you
|>spend
|> |some extended time on a forensic unit.
|
|
|
|I have been suggesting that the time spent in treatment is
beneficial to the
|mentally ill, whether they are there voluntarily or not.
That's usually true, but not always.
I have also been
|suggesting that I don't see good alternatives to this practice of
requiring
|that mentally ill individuals stay in treatment until they are no
longer a
|danger to themselves or others.
|
|Nancy
|
I have suggested that California has at least one better alternative,
though it doesn't solve the whole problem. Otherwise, though I have
no better solution either, there is an irony in the cases that don't
fit the textbook mold, and create an injustice.
There are a few indicators of dangerousness, such as a childhood
history of hurting animals or setting fires. However, even those have
a low correlation with dangerousness in adulthood. Obviously, current
dangerousness, such as temper outbursts, fighting and threats are
indications, though this doesn't describe most people defined as
"dangerous."
The *original* post on this subject suggested that the poor pedophiles
were singled out, based on what they *might* do. I replied suggesting
that they are not the only ones.
Agent@Large
<dans...@earthlink.net> wrote:
<snip>
>I have been suggesting that the time spent in treatment is beneficial to the
>mentally ill, whether they are there voluntarily or not. I have also been
>suggesting that I don't see good alternatives to this practice of requiring
>that mentally ill individuals stay in treatment until they are no longer a
>danger to themselves or others.
>
>Nancy
Nancy, this is the first time in the discussion (as I recall) that you
mentioned the standard of being "a danger to themselves or others."
Who has been arguing that such a person should not be locked up
against their will? What has been discussed here is the person who is
clearly NOT a danger to themselves or others being locked up
indefinitely without a trial.
sara...@my-dejanews.com
"...the time spent in treatment is beneficial to the
> mentally ill, whether they are there voluntarily or not...."?
Saragale
*****************
In article <7704jc$obg$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
"Nancy Stone" <dans...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Gene Douglas wrote in message
> <76vo9m$474u$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>...
>
> snip
>
> > |No one has asked for or suggested that there should be "special
> > |treatment." What has been said is that the treatment that the
> >mentally
> > |ill receive is as severe as and often longer in duration than a
> > |convicted felon. You have adamently denied this. I suggest you
> >spend
> > |some extended time on a forensic unit.
>
> No, I have not adamantly denied this. I have not denied it at all.
>
> I have been suggesting that the time spent in treatment is beneficial to the
> mentally ill, whether they are there voluntarily or not. I have also been
> suggesting that I don't see good alternatives to this practice of requiring
> that mentally ill individuals stay in treatment until they are no longer a
> danger to themselves or others.
>
> Nancy
>
>
John Clark
Nancy Stone schrieb:
> the desires for freedom of specific individuals. As the famous line in
> Marat/Sade goes "We're all normal and we want our freedom!" Most criminals
> imprisoned after trial continue to assert their innocence. "We didn't do it
> and we want our freedom!" Does that mean they should all be released? Why
> not?
Well, so much for a new year's resolution... from the individual's
perspective, there are several possibilties.
1) the convict is rightly convicted and just publicly stating innocence. In this
case at a 'fundamental' level the convict 'knows the truth of the matter'.
2) the convict was wrongly convicted and is stating the truth. In this case
the individual also knows the truth of the matter and is not believed. A
Cassandra as it were.
I think mental patients and the latter example have more in common. If
an individual does not see their behavior as 'wrong' or 'criminal' or
'lending to be a danger to one's self or others', then part of the
'treatment' process is to bring them to that understanding or give
a 'verdict' of untreatability. In the case of the 'really not guilty' convict
they have to eventually resign themself to the fact that 'really guilty
or not', they are being punished and behave in a fashion expected of convicts.
And by extension, the mentally ill must resign themselves to behaving
as a mentally ill person who is being treated.
Nancy Stone
Agent@Large wrote in message
<95F57A5550113272.E3B8DFDA...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
t>...
the
>>mentally ill, whether they are there voluntarily or not. I have also been
>>suggesting that I don't see good alternatives to this practice of
requiring
>>that mentally ill individuals stay in treatment until they are no longer a
>>danger to themselves or others.
>>
>>Nancy
>
>mentioned the standard of being "a danger to themselves or others."
>Who has been arguing that such a person should not be locked up
>against their will? What has been discussed here is the person who is
>clearly NOT a danger to themselves or others being locked up
>indefinitely without a trial.
Silke and John Clark were advancing different arguments than you were.
Someone who is being evaluated prior to trial has already shown themselves
to be potentially a danger to themselves by being unable to keep from being
arrested or unable to comply with arrest procedures. As I said a long time
back, although anyone can be in the wrong place at the wrong time, people
are generally not rounded up at random, nor are they routinely evaluated.
Someone who is evaluated has exhibited behavior of some sort (or has an
attorney who requested evaluation) that raised doubts about their
competence. A person who cannot live in society without being arrested,
because of mental illness-related behavior, is a danger to himself, if not
to others (depends on the crime the person is suspected of). Coming into
conflict with the law is dangerous for everyone, but more so for someone who
does not understand what cops expect and what the law requires of them
(stopping when told to do so, giving identification upon request, answering
questions about where you are going, submitting to arrest when informed that
you are being arrested, refraining from interfering in police activities,
refraining from cursing out or otherwise assaulting cops, and so on). That
was part of my point about the tragedies being discussed in this thread.
Further, placing someone who is incompetent into the general prison
population is an abuse that should be prevented, again in order to keep the
person from being a danger to themselves or others through their inability
to deal with the level of aggression among prisoners or the demands of
prison routine.
Nancy
Nancy Stone
sara...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<770g7d$3qo$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>What evidence do you have to support the claim below that:
>
>> mentally ill, whether they are there voluntarily or not...."?
>
>Saragale
>*****************
The entire literature on the effectiveness of in-patient treatment of major
mental illness. I do not have time to look it up, but you are welcome to.
Nancy
>
>In article <7704jc$obg$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> "Nancy Stone" <dans...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> Gene Douglas wrote in message
>> <76vo9m$474u$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>...
>>
>> snip
>>
>> > |No one has asked for or suggested that there should be "special
>> > |treatment." What has been said is that the treatment that the
>> >mentally
>> > |ill receive is as severe as and often longer in duration than a
>> > |convicted felon. You have adamently denied this. I suggest you
>> >spend
>> > |some extended time on a forensic unit.
>>
>> No, I have not adamantly denied this. I have not denied it at all.
>>
>> I have been suggesting that the time spent in treatment is beneficial to
the
>> mentally ill, whether they are there voluntarily or not. I have also
been
>> suggesting that I don't see good alternatives to this practice of
requiring
>> that mentally ill individuals stay in treatment until they are no longer
a
>> danger to themselves or others.
>>
>> Nancy
>>
>>
>
>
Gene Douglas
|
cut
|Further, placing someone who is incompetent into the general prison
|population is an abuse that should be prevented, again in order to
keep the
|person from being a danger to themselves or others through their
inability
|to deal with the level of aggression among prisoners or the demands
of
|prison routine.
|
|Nancy
|
My saying that a mental hospital is a worse experience than a prison
was not to suggest that mental patients be put in a prison, or even to
suggest that they have a choice. I was simply comparing the comfort
level, after a prior post seemed to suggest that, not being the same
thing, it was all right if somebody accused of a crime were left in a
mental hospital forever.
Gene Douglas
Nancy Stone wrote in message
|
|sara...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
|<770g7d$3qo$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
|>What evidence do you have to support the claim below that:
|>
|> "...the time spent in treatment is beneficial to the
|>> mentally ill, whether they are there voluntarily or not...."?
|>
|>Saragale
|>*****************
|
|
|The entire literature on the effectiveness of in-patient treatment
of major
|mental illness. I do not have time to look it up, but you are
welcome to.
|
|Nancy
|
those exceptional cases I referred to.
|
Mark Morin
>
> sara...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
> <770g7d$3qo$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >What evidence do you have to support the claim below that:
> >
> > "...the time spent in treatment is beneficial to the
> >> mentally ill, whether they are there voluntarily or not...."?
> >
> >Saragale
> >*****************
>
> The entire literature on the effectiveness of in-patient treatment of major
> mental illness. I do not have time to look it up, but you are welcome to.
>
the entire literature is a bit less optimistic than this. There is also
a body of literature that points to how extended hospitalization of
chronically mentally ill persons isolates them from society and does not
help them to function in a society that is not defined by mental
illness. That was the whole emphasis on deinstitutionalization.
mark
--
===========================================================
If I had only.....
forgotten future greatness and looked at the green things
and the buildings and reached out to those around me and
smelled the air and ignored the forms and the self-styled
obligations and heard the rain on the roof
.......and it's not too late
Hugh Prather
http://members.xoom.com/mmorin
Psychology FAQ (a work in progress) http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/Resort/5806/spp/
Gene Douglas
Agent@Large wrote in message ...
|<dans...@earthlink.net> wrote:
|
|>
|>Agent@Large wrote in message
|><95F57A5550113272.E3B8DFDA2C942853.1B332A18854738D3@library-
proxy.airnews.n e
|>t>...
|>>On Wed, 6 Jan 1999 08:55:45 -0000, "Nancy Stone"
|>><dans...@earthlink.net> wrote:
|>>
|>><snip>
|>
|>Someone who is being evaluated prior to trial has already shown
themselves
|>to be potentially a danger to themselves by being unable to keep
from being
|>arrested or unable to comply with arrest procedures.
|
|I can't believe you actually said that, Nancy! I am too overwhelmed
|with shock to find words that could adequately respond to this
|statement of yours. There are many, many people WITHOUT mental
illness
|who get arrested repeatedly! Many of these people ALSO seem unable
to
|comply with arrest procedures. Is this reason to lock THEM up
|indefinitely without a trial? Using your sweeping definition, EVERY
|arrest for a criminal act - cheating on one's income tax, forging
|checks, harassments, etc.- constitutes an act that is "a danger to
|oneself or others."
Nancy Stone
Agent@Large wrote in message ...
><dans...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>Agent@Large wrote in message
ne
>>t>...
>>>On Wed, 6 Jan 1999 08:55:45 -0000, "Nancy Stone"
>>><dans...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>the
>>>>mentally ill, whether they are there voluntarily or not. I have also
been
>>>>suggesting that I don't see good alternatives to this practice of
>>requiring
>>>>that mentally ill individuals stay in treatment until they are no longer
>>>>danger to themselves or others.
>>>>
>>>>Nancy
>>>
>>>Nancy, this is the first time in the discussion (as I recall) that you
>>>mentioned the standard of being "a danger to themselves or others."
>>>Who has been arguing that such a person should not be locked up
>>>against their will? What has been discussed here is the person who is
>>>clearly NOT a danger to themselves or others being locked up
>>>indefinitely without a trial.
>>
>>Silke and John Clark were advancing different arguments than you were.
>>
>>to be potentially a danger to themselves by being unable to keep from
being
>>arrested or unable to comply with arrest procedures.
>
>with shock to find words that could adequately respond to this
>statement of yours. There are many, many people WITHOUT mental illness
>who get arrested repeatedly! Many of these people ALSO seem unable to
>comply with arrest procedures. Is this reason to lock THEM up
>indefinitely without a trial? Using your sweeping definition, EVERY
>arrest for a criminal act - cheating on one's income tax, forging
>checks, harassments, etc.- constitutes an act that is "a danger to
>oneself or others."
I did not say that this is the criteria for determining mental illness. I
said it is one way in which the mentally ill are a danger to themselves.
All of those other people who get arrested repeatedly and do not comply with
arrest procedures are also a danger to themselves, as evidenced by the
consequences they suffer, but they are considered able to control their
behavior if they wish to. That is part of the definition of competence.
>
>> As I said a long time
>>back, although anyone can be in the wrong place at the wrong time, people
>>are generally not rounded up at random, nor are they routinely evaluated.
>
>What famous Attorney General said, "If they weren't guilty, they
>wouldn't have been arrested?" (Or something like that.)
>
>>Someone who is evaluated has exhibited behavior of some sort (or has an
>>attorney who requested evaluation) that raised doubts about their
>>competence.
>
>Being "not competent," i.e., unable to understand the charges or
>cooperate with one's attorney, is not necessarily the same thing as
>being a danger to oneself or others
No, and I didn't say it was.
>
>> A person who cannot live in society without being arrested,
>>because of mental illness-related behavior, is a danger to himself, if not
>>to others (depends on the crime the person is suspected of).
>
>One doesn't get arrested because one is mentally ill. One gets
>arrested because one is suspected of committing a crime, i.e.,
>breaking a law.
Someone who is mentally ill may be unable to recognize what behaviors will
get them arrested and which ones won't, and unable to prevent themselves
from engaging in those behaviors. That gets them arrested.
>
>> Coming into
>>conflict with the law is dangerous for everyone, but more so for someone
who
>>does not understand what cops expect and what the law requires of them
>>(stopping when told to do so, giving identification upon request,
answering
>>questions about where you are going, submitting to arrest when informed
that
>>you are being arrested, refraining from interfering in police activities,
>>refraining from cursing out or otherwise assaulting cops, and so on).
>
>It sounds like you are saying that the POLICE are the ones who are a
>danger to the person who is mentally disabled.
Obviously. so are other arrestees, the court system, and the general
public. when someone is seriously impaired they are unable to function in
many different contexts. That is what makes the world a dangerous place for
them. I think this is very obvious.
>
>> That
>>was part of my point about the tragedies being discussed in this thread.
>
>The tragedies you discussed were the ones where the suspects were
>harmed or killed while being arrested. Are we now to focus on POSSIBLE
>reactions to being arrested, rather than on the actual behavior
>leading to the arrest in the first place? Is this the standard you
>want to use to determine if someone with a mental disability should be
>locked up indefinitely? Surely, if anyone assaults a police officer
>during an arrest, that person presents a danger. This should be
>treated separately - and "Resisting Arrest," "Assaulting a Police
>Officer," "Obstruction of Justice," "Interference of Governmental
>Administration" are examples of such crimes. These are crimes ADDED to
>the original charges against the suspect. I submit that these crimes
>are committed MORE by "average" people than by the mentally disabled.
>(This, I admit, is based on anecdotal evidence, but I'll look for
>references.)
Of course, but that is only because the cops encounter more "average" people
in the course of a day than they do mentally disabled. I think a mentally
disabled person is more likely to engage in such behavior. Secondary or
not, these are still crimes.
>
>>Further, placing someone who is incompetent into the general prison
>>population is an abuse that should be prevented, again in order to keep
the
>>person from being a danger to themselves or others through their inability
>>to deal with the level of aggression among prisoners or the demands of
>>prison routine.
>
>I agree with you on this one.
>
Gene Douglas
Nancy Stone wrote in message
|
|Agent@Large wrote in message ...
|>On Wed, 6 Jan 1999 13:26:04 -0000, "Nancy Stone"
|><dans...@earthlink.net> wrote:
|>
|>>
|>>Agent@Large wrote in message
proxy.airnews.
|ne
|>>t>...
|>>>On Wed, 6 Jan 1999 08:55:45 -0000, "Nancy Stone"
|>>><dans...@earthlink.net> wrote:
|>>>
|>>><snip>
cut
|>locked up indefinitely? Surely, if anyone assaults a police officer
|>during an arrest, that person presents a danger. This should be
|>treated separately - and "Resisting Arrest," "Assaulting a Police
|>Officer," "Obstruction of Justice," "Interference of Governmental
|>Administration" are examples of such crimes. These are crimes ADDED
to
|>the original charges against the suspect. I submit that these
crimes
|>are committed MORE by "average" people than by the mentally
disabled.
|>(This, I admit, is based on anecdotal evidence, but I'll look for
|>references.)
|
|
|Of course, but that is only because the cops encounter more
"average" people
|in the course of a day than they do mentally disabled. I think a
mentally
|disabled person is more likely to engage in such behavior.
Secondary or
|not, these are still crimes.
|
Actually, somebody did a survey a number of years ago, and found that
the mentally well are more likely to commit criminal acts than the
mentally ill. This is important, because it relates to a lot of
public prejudices toward the mentally ill.
Gene Douglas
Silke-Maria Weineck wrote in message ...
|: Nancy Stone wrote:
|:>
|:> sara...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
|:> <770g7d$3qo$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
|:> >What evidence do you have to support the claim below that:
|:> >
|:> >> mentally ill, whether they are there voluntarily or not...."?
|:> >
|:> >Saragale
|:> >*****************
|:>
|:> The entire literature on the effectiveness of in-patient
treatment of major
|:> mental illness. I do not have time to look it up, but you are
welcome to.
|:>
|
|
|: the entire literature is a bit less optimistic than this. There
is also
|: a body of literature that points to how extended hospitalization
of
|: chronically mentally ill persons isolates them from society and
does not
|: help them to function in a society that is not defined by mental
|: illness. That was the whole emphasis on deinstitutionalization.
|
and
|three months to get my brother stable again. The Haldol practice
Gene
|described elsewhere is part of it, but by no means the only part.
Force
|and restraint are about the worst things you can do to someone who's
|already paranoid.
|
|smw
There is nothing magical about being in a hospital. Public relations
photos like to show happy-looking nurses carrying a tray among a lot
of happy-looking patients, as if there is something actually going on.
Most of what happens in a 24 hour day in a state mental hospital has
no relation to therapy. They are just waiting for the medication to
take effect.
For this reason, community mental health centers are being staffed in
many locations, for the purpose of keeping people out of hospitals,
because generally people are better off outside of a hospital. Much
of what passes for therapy in a state hospital is mainly something to
impress the bureaucrats at the state capitol that lots of good things
are going on, and the officials at the hospital get their raises and
promotions. In a private hospital, much of what is presented is for
sales/PR purposes, to impress the consumers who make decisions to use
the hospital.
Agent@Large
<dans...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>Agent@Large wrote in message
><95F57A5550113272.E3B8DFDA...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
>t>...
>>On Wed, 6 Jan 1999 08:55:45 -0000, "Nancy Stone"
>><dans...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>>I have been suggesting that the time spent in treatment is beneficial to
>the
> As I said a long time
>back, although anyone can be in the wrong place at the wrong time, people
>are generally not rounded up at random, nor are they routinely evaluated.
What famous Attorney General said, "If they weren't guilty, they
wouldn't have been arrested?" (Or something like that.)
>Someone who is evaluated has exhibited behavior of some sort (or has an
>attorney who requested evaluation) that raised doubts about their
>competence.
Being "not competent," i.e., unable to understand the charges or
cooperate with one's attorney, is not necessarily the same thing as
being a danger to oneself or others
> A person who cannot live in society without being arrested,
>because of mental illness-related behavior, is a danger to himself, if not
>to others (depends on the crime the person is suspected of).
One doesn't get arrested because one is mentally ill. One gets
arrested because one is suspected of committing a crime, i.e.,
breaking a law.
> Coming into
>conflict with the law is dangerous for everyone, but more so for someone who
>does not understand what cops expect and what the law requires of them
>(stopping when told to do so, giving identification upon request, answering
>questions about where you are going, submitting to arrest when informed that
>you are being arrested, refraining from interfering in police activities,
>refraining from cursing out or otherwise assaulting cops, and so on).
It sounds like you are saying that the POLICE are the ones who are a
danger to the person who is mentally disabled.
> That
>was part of my point about the tragedies being discussed in this thread.
The tragedies you discussed were the ones where the suspects were
harmed or killed while being arrested. Are we now to focus on POSSIBLE
reactions to being arrested, rather than on the actual behavior
leading to the arrest in the first place? Is this the standard you
want to use to determine if someone with a mental disability should be
locked up indefinitely? Surely, if anyone assaults a police officer
during an arrest, that person presents a danger. This should be
treated separately - and "Resisting Arrest," "Assaulting a Police
Officer," "Obstruction of Justice," "Interference of Governmental
Administration" are examples of such crimes. These are crimes ADDED to
the original charges against the suspect. I submit that these crimes
are committed MORE by "average" people than by the mentally disabled.
(This, I admit, is based on anecdotal evidence, but I'll look for
references.)
>Further, placing someone who is incompetent into the general prison
Agent@Large
<dans...@earthlink.net> wrote:
There is NO mention of ability "to control their behavior" in the
definition of "competency." Note below:
"Competency to stand trial involves the question of whether a criminal
defendant has "sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer
with a reasonable degree of rational understanding - and whether he
has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings
against him" ( Dusky v. United States, 1960, p. 402 )."
(Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402) *
* From: Competent and incompetent criminal defendants: A quantitative
review of comparative research.
By Nicholson, Robert A.; Kugler, Karen E.
Psychological Bulletin. 1991 May Vol 109(3) 355-370
>
>>
>>> As I said a long time
>>>back, although anyone can be in the wrong place at the wrong time, people
>>>are generally not rounded up at random, nor are they routinely evaluated.
>>
>>What famous Attorney General said, "If they weren't guilty, they
>>wouldn't have been arrested?" (Or something like that.)
>>
>>>Someone who is evaluated has exhibited behavior of some sort (or has an
>>>attorney who requested evaluation) that raised doubts about their
>>>competence.
>>
>>Being "not competent," i.e., unable to understand the charges or
>>cooperate with one's attorney, is not necessarily the same thing as
>>being a danger to oneself or others
>
>
>No, and I didn't say it was.
But you did! You wrote: "Someone who is being evaluated prior to trial
has already shown themselves to be potentially a danger to themselves
by being unable to keep from being arrested or unable to comply with
arrest procedures." Someone who is being evaluated PRIOR to trial is
being evaluated for competency to stand trial, NOT whether they are a
danger to themselves or others. And this should not be assumed during
a competency evaluation.
>>
>>> A person who cannot live in society without being arrested,
>>>because of mental illness-related behavior, is a danger to himself, if not
>>>to others (depends on the crime the person is suspected of).
>>
>>One doesn't get arrested because one is mentally ill. One gets
>>arrested because one is suspected of committing a crime, i.e.,
>>breaking a law.
>
>
>Someone who is mentally ill may be unable to recognize what behaviors will
>get them arrested and which ones won't, and unable to prevent themselves
>from engaging in those behaviors. That gets them arrested.
You are confusing two fields: law and psychology. No one is arrested
for being mentally ill - period. They are arrested for breaking a law.
Now, WERE THEY MENTALLY ILL when they broke the law?, and ARE THEY
COMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL? are two separate questions. The answers are
determined by TWO evaluations. They may have broken the law due to
their mental illness - THAT is what psychological evaluations are all
about. The person who is found not competent to stand trial will not
get a trial. Now, a person who is found not competent may also not be
a danger to himself or others. But, if one is incompetent to stand
trial, why even bother with the psychological evaluations to determine
if the person was mentally ill during the alleged commission of the
crime? This is the dilemma. Should a person who is not competent to
stand trial AUTOMATICALLY be locked up if he is not a danger to
himself or others?
>
>>
>>> Coming into
>>>conflict with the law is dangerous for everyone, but more so for someone
>who
>>>does not understand what cops expect and what the law requires of them
>>>(stopping when told to do so, giving identification upon request,
>answering
>>>questions about where you are going, submitting to arrest when informed
>that
>>>you are being arrested, refraining from interfering in police activities,
>>>refraining from cursing out or otherwise assaulting cops, and so on).
>>
>>It sounds like you are saying that the POLICE are the ones who are a
>>danger to the person who is mentally disabled.
>
>
>Obviously. so are other arrestees, the court system, and the general
>public. when someone is seriously impaired they are unable to function in
>many different contexts. That is what makes the world a dangerous place for
>them. I think this is very obvious.
But this is "arresting" somebody for being arrested!!! Think about it.
>
>>
>>> That
>>>was part of my point about the tragedies being discussed in this thread.
>>
>>The tragedies you discussed were the ones where the suspects were
>>harmed or killed while being arrested. Are we now to focus on POSSIBLE
>>reactions to being arrested, rather than on the actual behavior
>>leading to the arrest in the first place? Is this the standard you
>>want to use to determine if someone with a mental disability should be
>>locked up indefinitely? Surely, if anyone assaults a police officer
>>during an arrest, that person presents a danger. This should be
>>treated separately - and "Resisting Arrest," "Assaulting a Police
>>Officer," "Obstruction of Justice," "Interference of Governmental
>>Administration" are examples of such crimes. These are crimes ADDED to
>>the original charges against the suspect. I submit that these crimes
>>are committed MORE by "average" people than by the mentally disabled.
>>(This, I admit, is based on anecdotal evidence, but I'll look for
>>references.)
>
>
>Of course, but that is only because the cops encounter more "average" people
>in the course of a day than they do mentally disabled. I think a mentally
>disabled person is more likely to engage in such behavior. Secondary or
>not, these are still crimes.
And I say, allow them to be tried for these crimes! It's the ONLY
humane alternative, as far as I can see. To deprive them of due
process just because they are mentally ill is an injustice that I find
disturbing. My position is simple: First, determine by trial if the
accused is guilty or not of the crime - regardless if they are
"competent" or not. An appointed legal guardian can be used if the
person cannot understand the charges or cannot cooperate with his
attorney. Then, if found guilty, the judge should take into
consideration the person's state of mind and sentence him accordingly.
sara...@my-dejanews.com
Thank you for the succinct restatement of this thread. I agree with what you
are saying and I appreciate your sayng it.
I am frightened by those who want to apotheosize authority (in the form of
science or otherwise). As someone who might be in the position of being
detained for illegal behavior while mentally gorked, this is more than a
hypothetical question for me. Generally, I'd rather deal with a cop anyday
than a mental health professional--I'm betting I won't use a weapon. In my
experience as a mental health worker and as a "patient" I found the people
who are attracted to "high level" mental health jobs tend to be very
authoritarian, lack empathy (although they often may have "problems" they
wish to deny), and often tend to be sadistic. I am apalled that anyone would
give these folks the intellectual rationalizations to carry on without self
examination and examination of their procedures and policies. I seriously
doubt the subject of involuntary confinement of mental patients has been
"scientifically" studied. Since I'm a measly non-scientist, people will just
have to give me some good specific cites to persuade me otherwise.
I would be more persuaded by information from Amnesty International.
Saragale
In article
<F160E1CE4C05E6D3.65EA83BA...@library-proxy.airnews.net
>, ag...@ie-com.com wrote:
Gene Douglas
Tim McNamara wrote in message ...
|In article <SPPM9901050...@cmhcsys.cmhc.com>, Nancy Stone
|<dans...@earthlink.net> wrote:
|
cut
|
|
|I have heard enough stories of brutality by hospital staff to be of
the
|opinion that it is not markedly different, from the patient's point
of
|view, than prison. Or is thepatient's viewpoint invalid becuase
they
|are mentally ill? Do the mentally ill have a right to an opinion
about
|their treatment? Or are we really gods who know better than they
do?
The word of a mentally ill person is generally disregarded, because
after all, he's mentally ill.
|
|The essential element, IMHO, is that the inmate and the hospital
|patient are in the same situation of relative powerlessness. The
|safeguard protecting either the inmate or the patient is *only* the
|conscience and the ethicality of the guard or the staff.
|
Of course, the individual staff member is often powerless when he sees
injustice. Either way, one can't say that a mental hospital is a lot
better than a prison, because it is labeled as "care."
Gene Douglas
Agent@Large wrote in message ...
For a misdemeanor, which might result in a $25 fine. How many cities
or counties would pay for that?
|
|Then the trial (or dispositional hearing if the person, with the
help
|and advice of his legal guardian and attorney, agree to plead
guilty).
|
|> Tell him to go and sin some more? Hospitalize him
|>until he is competent to come back and answer for his defecation,
and
|>have another thousand dollar trial?
|
|None of the above, since he is now either "guilty" or "not guilty."
|If he is convicted, a sentence commensurate with the crime AND the
his
|state of mind should be imposed.
|
This might work out, if it were an avenue to getting him some
treatment. The possibility of a fine might just be background.
Gene Douglas
through again.
Gene Douglas wrote in message ...
|
|Agent@Large wrote in message ...
| |On Tue, 05 Jan 1999 15:27:07 GMT, "Nancy Stone"
| |<dans...@earthlink.net> wrote:
| |
| |>
| |>Agent@Large wrote in message ...
| |>>This has not appeared on my newsserver, so I am re-submitting
it.
| |>>
| |>>On Mon, 04 Jan 1999 07:09:27 GMT, "Nancy Stone"
| |>><dans...@earthlink.net> wrote:
| |>>
| |>>>I repeat -- being institutionalized, even against one's will,
is
|not the
| |>>>same as serving time or being in prison.
| |>>>
| |>>>Nancy
| |>>>
| |>>>
|cut
| |>
| |>A person with schizophrenia spends time, against his will, in a
|hospital
| |>because he has an illness that prevents him from conforming his
|behavior to
| |>important rules of society (among other symptoms).
| |
| |False. He must be a danger to himself or others. Failing to
conform
| |his behavior to important rules of society, even with other
|symptoms,
| |is not sufficient to involuntarily commit the individual in an
| |institution!
| |>
|Though it used to be.
|
| |>Neither individual has any clue if or when they will get out of
the
| |>hospital.
| |
| |True only in the first case (i.e., the heart attack patient); the
| |person with schizophrenia shouldn't be institutionalized at all
| |against his will if he wasn't a danger to himself or others.
| |
|The heart attack patient will leave when he dies or gets well. If
he
|isn't getting any better, he with either be cared for at home, or in
a
|nursing home, but he has the right to choose.
|
|The schizophrenic will leave when he dies or gets well, but if he
|doesn't get any better, then the question becomes, "what is the
|hospital doing for him?" Unlike the heart attack patient, continued
|captivity is no longer for his own good. And it is not his choice.
|
|It is for protection of the public, and there are issues like: does
|the public need to be protected from him? How does anybody know?
Has
|he actually committed a crime? How will it ever be decided?
|
| |> Neither did anything wrong to be there. Both are suffering.
| |
|cut
| |
| |So, are you advocating the involuntary institutionalization of
|people
| |with mental disorders? Last time I looked, this should only be
done
| |with those who are a danger to themselves or others.
|
|It does appear that the present system could be improved upon. I
|would think that inability to care for one's self might be a
standard,
|and the period of hospitalization might be limited to 30 days, about
|as long as it takes for medication to be effective. Inability to
|avoid committing misdemeanors might be another, such that defecation
|on a downtown sidewalk would be a behavior one might be expected to
|avoid.
| |>
|Remainder snipped. When I was a freshman, I used to believe that
|society ought to be run by Ph.D.'s. Oh, how wrong I was.
|
Gene Douglas
WildfireHi wrote in message ...
|Subject: Re: Affect and personality
|From: "Nancy Stone" <dans...@earthlink.net>
|
|<<< Most police forces make the decision that the officers are just
guys doing
|a job and that they should not be placed in excess jeopardy to do
it. That
|means that they are not expected to treat kindly those who attack
them with
|machetes or to risk their lives in subduing them. >>>
|
|Police don't have to risk their lives to subdue a man with machete,
unless the
|man is charging them, which rarely occurs if the police keep their
distance. A
|man with a machete is far less dangerous than a wild lion or tiger.
Wild
|animals are saved whenever possible and shot with tranquilizer
darts. There
|are many non-lethal ways to subdue humans without killing them.
When I managed
|a hotel on Miami Beach, I called the police to report a naked man
wondering
|around incoherently in my lobby. When the police arrived they
ordered to lay
|on the ground, the man was oblivious to the police commands. The
then
|proceeded to beat him bloody with billy clubs. There is a
difference between
|necessary force and excessive force. There is also a difference
between
|necessary confinement and excessive confinement. People who haven't
committed
|crimes should be subjected to the least restrictive environment
necessary in
|accord with compassion and practical limitations.
|
A policeman can't be expected to be walking around with a bean-bag gun
or tranquilizer gun in his hand. However, it would appear that in the
above case, proper training would have allowed two policemen to take
him by the arms without undue danger to themselves.
|<<<<
|Further, they are not expected to decide under pressure of assault
who is
|mentally ill and who is not. Nor are they expected to take a
neighbor's or
|relative's word for who is dangerous and who is not in a volatile
situation.
|>>>>
|
|Nancy, you sound like a very warm, caring person. Most of the time
when police
|arrive at a scene with a mentally ill person, the police are not
under pressure
|to act. You have overstated the situation as it normally occurs.
If police
|acted coolly, responsibly and professionally all of society would be
better
|off. But all too often, police act like mindless pit bulls. Their
use of
|excessive force is the norm, not the exception.
Most frequently, the person is making noise, but not actually
dangerous. The policemen talk to him, and request that he accompany
them. Most frequently he goes passively.
Gene Douglas
Agent@Large wrote in message ...
|On Wed, 6 Jan 1999 18:36:55 -0000, "Nancy Stone"
|<dans...@earthlink.net> wrote:
|
|>
|>Agent@Large wrote in message ...
|>>On Wed, 6 Jan 1999 13:26:04 -0000, "Nancy Stone"
|>><dans...@earthlink.net> wrote:
|>>
|>>>
|>>>Agent@Large wrote in message
|>>><95F57A5550113272.E3B8DFDA2C942853.1B332A18854738D3@library-proxy.
airnews.
|>ne
|>>>t>...
|>>>>On Wed, 6 Jan 1999 08:55:45 -0000, "Nancy Stone"
|>>>><dans...@earthlink.net> wrote:
|>>>>
|>>>><snip>
cut
|>>indefinitely without a trial? Using your sweeping definition,
EVERY
|>>arrest for a criminal act - cheating on one's income tax, forging
|>>checks, harassments, etc.- constitutes an act that is "a danger to
|>>oneself or others."
|>
Actually, I remember a person who was in an alcoholic psychosis, and
whose wife got him to sign something saying their adult children were
minors, in order to get welfare benefits. He wound up in a mental
hospital, being made competent to stand trial.
|>
|>I did not say that this is the criteria for determining mental
illness. I
|>said it is one way in which the mentally ill are a danger to
themselves.
|>All of those other people who get arrested repeatedly and do not
comply with
|>arrest procedures are also a danger to themselves, as evidenced by
the
|>consequences they suffer, but they are considered able to control
their
|>behavior if they wish to. That is part of the definition of
competence.
|
There are two kinds of competence: competence to stand trial, and
competence to commit a crime. If one is not culpable for a crime,
there are two standards which are applied: inability to understand the
nature, importance, or consequences of an act, or inability to
restrain one's self from committing the act.
|There is NO mention of ability "to control their behavior" in the
|definition of "competency." Note below:
|
|"Competency to stand trial involves the question of whether a
criminal
|defendant has "sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer
|with a reasonable degree of rational understanding - and whether he
|has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings
|against him" ( Dusky v. United States, 1960, p. 402 )."
|(Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402) *
|
|* From: Competent and incompetent criminal defendants: A
quantitative
|review of comparative research.
| By Nicholson, Robert A.; Kugler, Karen E.
| Psychological Bulletin. 1991 May Vol 109(3) 355-370
|>
|>>
cut
|>>
|>>What famous Attorney General said, "If they weren't guilty, they
|>>wouldn't have been arrested?" (Or something like that.)
|>>
|>>>Someone who is evaluated has exhibited behavior of some sort (or
has an
|>>>attorney who requested evaluation) that raised doubts about their
|>>>competence.
|>>
|>>Being "not competent," i.e., unable to understand the charges or
|>>cooperate with one's attorney, is not necessarily the same thing
as
|>>being a danger to oneself or others
|>
|>
|>No, and I didn't say it was.
|
|But you did! You wrote: "Someone who is being evaluated prior to
trial
|has already shown themselves to be potentially a danger to
themselves
|by being unable to keep from being arrested or unable to comply with
|arrest procedures." Someone who is being evaluated PRIOR to trial is
|being evaluated for competency to stand trial, NOT whether they are
a
|danger to themselves or others. And this should not be assumed
during
|a competency evaluation.
|
It is during the trial that they are evaluated for competencey to
commit a crime, and data gathered during the period of assessment for
competency to stand trial is used. A question is what period of time
did the second incompetency occur. Being a danger to themselves or
others is not a question in either case. That can be a question if a
person has threatened himself or others, or after he is found not
guilty for reason of insanity.
|>>
cut
And how do you tell if he is not making it obvious? If a hospital
chart shows that he yelled at a nurse two weeks ago, because he was
not allowed to go to the bathroom for another 15 minutes, is he a
danger to the public? If he got into a yelling argument with another
patient, is he a dangerous person? If he walks around saying, "I am
God," is he dangerous? If he passes gas during a hearing, and makes a
joke about the beans they served at lunch, is he a danger to the
public?
|>>
cut
|>
|>
|>Obviously. so are other arrestees, the court system, and the
general
|>public. when someone is seriously impaired they are unable to
function in
|>many different contexts. That is what makes the world a dangerous
place for
|>them. I think this is very obvious.
|
|But this is "arresting" somebody for being arrested!!! Think about
it.
|
It's not a simple, black-or-white issue, and it presents many ironies
which beg for a solution, which is not easily forthcoming. Whatever
you say should be done in this case or that, automatically presents a
yes-but proposition, and one must then decide which is the greater
problem.
|>
|>>
cut
|>>Administration" are examples of such crimes. These are crimes
ADDED to
|>>the original charges against the suspect. I submit that these
crimes
|>>are committed MORE by "average" people than by the mentally
disabled.
|>>(This, I admit, is based on anecdotal evidence, but I'll look for
|>>references.)
|>
|>
|>Of course, but that is only because the cops encounter more
"average" people
|>in the course of a day than they do mentally disabled. I think a
mentally
|>disabled person is more likely to engage in such behavior.
Secondary or
|>not, these are still crimes.
|
|And I say, allow them to be tried for these crimes! It's the ONLY
|humane alternative, as far as I can see. To deprive them of due
|process just because they are mentally ill is an injustice that I
find
|disturbing. My position is simple: First, determine by trial if the
|accused is guilty or not of the crime - regardless if they are
|"competent" or not.
This is done in California, whenever the person can not become
competent, on the condition that only a "not guilty" verdict can be
found. If it can not, the person is considered not to have been
tried.
An appointed legal guardian can be used if the
|person cannot understand the charges or cannot cooperate with his
|attorney. Then, if found guilty, the judge should take into
|consideration the person's state of mind and sentence him
accordingly.
|
Nobody but the accused can know what happened when he was there. The
person can not be presumed to be able to cooperate with a legal
guardian. Too often, these guardians have not had the defendant's
interest in mind, and were just collecting a fee to process
"material." If the person is not cooperative with facilitating smooth
procedure, they start getting somebody else the next time. (Example:
sterilization of retarded people in the 1930's. Some were not
actually retarded, but were ignorant, underage, and homeless.)
Agent@Large
<sm...@umich.edu> wrote:
>In sci.psychology.psychotherapy Agent@Large <ag...@ie-com.com> wrote:
>: On Wed, 06 Jan 1999 03:41:34 GMT, Silke-Maria Weineck
>: <sm...@umich.edu> wrote:
>
>:>In sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Agent@Large <ag...@ie-com.com> wrote:
>:>: It is ludicrous to suggest that mentally ill persons should
>:>: be subjected to the exact same procedures and dispositions as the
>:>: average person by the criminal justice system.
>:>
>:>But it is not ludicrous (though controversial and legitimate object of
>:>argument) to say that mentally ill people should be able to chose to be
>:>subjected to the exact same procedures. Especially if it gets them two
>:>years in prison instead of a lifetime in a mental hospital.
>
>: This is what a court appointed Legal Guardian, working with the
>: accused, and the attorney for the accused, would decide.
>
>Well, no -- the Guardian would work in the interest of his client as _he
>or she_ perceives it. I would like to see people to have the right to act
>_against_ their own interests as others perceive them. There is a risk
>entailed, but I think it's worth it.
I disagree. If the person is not able to understand the legal
proceedings and unable to cooperate with his attorney, this is by far
the better approach - rather than letting him try to sort out his own
"best interests" in a trial, or not being granted a trial at all and
being locked up indefinitely. Remember, this person has been found to
be not competent to work with his attorney and unable to understand
the nature of the charges (i.e., the proceedings) against him in a
court of law.
>:>This discussion would greatly improve if we could all refrain from
>:>statements that imply that "mentally ill person" is an adequate term to
>:>cover the great variety of mental illness. It might be a bit cumbersome
>:>but still worth the trouble to replace "the mentally ill" or the generic
>:>singular with formulations like "in some cases" or to take recourse
>:>to formulations like "some forms of mental illness." Otherwise, you're
>:>losing precisely the flexibility that the complexity of the questions
>:>discussed here demands.
>
>: Point taken. Certain forms of mental illness do not significantly
>: impair one's ability to distinguish right from wrong, nor impair one's
>: ability to cooperate with one's attorney. These are, in general, the
>: usual standards applied in forensic cases.
>
>I realize you are mostly concerned with forensic cases -- I am not, and
>many of the statements in this thread here have concerned all kinds of
>involuntary hospitalization
Yes; I am only referring to forensic issues. My position may not be
the same in other types of cases.
>:>: But I *am* saying he should have his day in court and enjoy
>:>: the same guarantee of due process as you or I.
>:>
>:>But you should be clear that you are willing to stand for the consequences
>:>of your position as well.
>:>
>:>smw
>
>: Are you suggesting that I am not clear about being willing to accept
>: the consequences of my position? In what way or ways have I been
>: equivocal or ambivalent about my acceptance of the consequences of due
>: process for ALL people, including those "with some forms of mental
>: illness" and with developmental disabilities? I am convinced that my
>: position is morally and ethically justified, more consistent with the
>: Constitution than the present criminal justice system regarding this
>: population, and feasible, as well. However, I am old enough to
>: acknowledge that no social system is perfect.
>
>Calm down -- I'm merely saying that if we affirm the right to chose
>freedom for everybody who is capable of making such a choice, we are also
>affirming their right to die in the streets.
>
>smw
I am NOT affirming the right to choose freedom for those who are a
danger to themselves and/or others. In such cases, it makes no
difference whether they are capable of choosing freedom or not.
I still fail to see your point.
Gene Douglas
Silke-Maria Weineck wrote in message ...
|
|: I think we run into some problems when we start to
institutionalize
|: people "for their own good." If one's ability to care for himself
is
|: so limited that it presents a danger to himself, then there is no
|: question that the person requires care in "a least restrictive
|: environment" - including an institution if appropriate - against
his
|: will.
|
|There may be no question in your mind, but there are a few in
|mine. People present dangers to themselves all the time -- they
|drive cars very fast or engage in high-risk sports, they smoke in
bed,
|they do all kinds of dangerous things. So clearly the criterium
"presents
|a danger to himself" is not adequate to deprive people of their
freedom.
Consider: An old man passes out drunk on his sofa every day. He
urinates on the sofa, himself, and every carpet in the house, every
day. He gets most of his nutrition from wine, and perhaps some milk
he drinks from time to time. He falls and hurts himself frequently.
He fires a gun through the TV, because his wife won't go to the liquor
store for him. His skin is covered with sores, perhaps from the
urine, or malnutrition. He develops a psychosis a couple of times a
year, and spends time in a hospital and a nursing home, until he
clears up.
He has not threatened to kill himself, and he is not sleeping outside
in the cold. His family wants him in a nursing home, where he will
receive 24 hour care. He doesn't want that, because in a nursing
home, he would not be able to intimidate anybody to bring liquor to
him.
Is he a danger to himself?
| When I'm in my rigorous mood, I'll say -- the one people whom it
|might be okay to deprive of their freedom in the absence of a crime
are
|those who are not capable of willing self-destruction. Those who are
|capable of willing self-destruction ought to be left to self-destroy
if
|they so desire. If they desire otherwise, then by all means give
them a
|home.
Are they competent to decide whether they want self-destruction? How
many threatened or attempted suicides have been glad they did not,
after some time has passed?
| In my more relaxed mood, I'd say that the only reason to keep
|people in an institution is either to shield them (or others) from
_acute_
|danger or to teach them how to take care of themselves.
| If you can't teach them how to take care of themselves and they
|still chose to go out there and perish, let them go.
Even if they don't know what they are doing? What if the person has
Alzheimer's? Should the nursing home let them walk out in the snow,
just because they are asking to do that?
According to Nancy,
|there are those who desire the institution -- they will come back.
Keep
|the doors open.
|
O.K. You're being facetious. My mistake.
|
| smw.
Agent@Large
<sm...@umich.edu> wrote:
>In sci.psychology.psychotherapy Agent@Large <ag...@ie-com.com> wrote:
>[...]
>
>: I think we run into some problems when we start to institutionalize
>: people "for their own good." If one's ability to care for himself is
>: so limited that it presents a danger to himself, then there is no
>: question that the person requires care in "a least restrictive
>: environment" - including an institution if appropriate - against his
>: will.
>
>There may be no question in your mind, but there are a few in
>mine. People present dangers to themselves all the time -- they
>drive cars very fast or engage in high-risk sports, they smoke in bed,
>they do all kinds of dangerous things. So clearly the criterium "presents
>a danger to himself" is not adequate to deprive people of their freedom.
I'm just stating the standard, recognized, and generally accepted
criteria used in "pick-up" orders. (I didn't think my words would end
up being construed to mean we should start institutionalizing
cigarette smokers.) People attempting or expressing plans for suicide
are usually the people to which this guideline is applied.
Nancy Stone
Agent@Large wrote in message ...
snip
>>I did not say that this is the criteria for determining mental illness. I
>>said it is one way in which the mentally ill are a danger to themselves.
>>All of those other people who get arrested repeatedly and do not comply
with
>>arrest procedures are also a danger to themselves, as evidenced by the
>>consequences they suffer, but they are considered able to control their
>>behavior if they wish to. That is part of the definition of competence.
>
>There is NO mention of ability "to control their behavior" in the
>definition of "competency." Note below:
>
>"Competency to stand trial involves the question of whether a criminal
>defendant has "sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer
>with a reasonable degree of rational understanding - and whether he
>has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings
>against him" ( Dusky v. United States, 1960, p. 402 )."
>(Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402) *
You are right. I believe it is part of the basis for determining whether
someone was sane at the moment they committed a crime. Ability to conform
one's actions to knowledge of what the law requires.
snip
>>>Being "not competent," i.e., unable to understand the charges or
>>>cooperate with one's attorney, is not necessarily the same thing as
>>>being a danger to oneself or others
>>
>>
>>No, and I didn't say it was.
>
>But you did! You wrote: "Someone who is being evaluated prior to trial
>has already shown themselves to be potentially a danger to themselves
>by being unable to keep from being arrested or unable to comply with
>arrest procedures." Someone who is being evaluated PRIOR to trial is
>being evaluated for competency to stand trial, NOT whether they are a
>danger to themselves or others. And this should not be assumed during
>a competency evaluation.
>
OK. Point taken.
>>>
>>>> A person who cannot live in society without being arrested,
>>>>because of mental illness-related behavior, is a danger to himself, if
not
>>>>to others (depends on the crime the person is suspected of).
>>>
>>>One doesn't get arrested because one is mentally ill. One gets
>>>arrested because one is suspected of committing a crime, i.e.,
>>>breaking a law.
>>
>>
>>Someone who is mentally ill may be unable to recognize what behaviors will
>>get them arrested and which ones won't, and unable to prevent themselves
>>from engaging in those behaviors. That gets them arrested.
>
>You are confusing two fields: law and psychology. No one is arrested
>for being mentally ill - period. They are arrested for breaking a law.
>Now, WERE THEY MENTALLY ILL when they broke the law?, and ARE THEY
>COMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL? are two separate questions. The answers are
>determined by TWO evaluations. They may have broken the law due to
>their mental illness - THAT is what psychological evaluations are all
>about. The person who is found not competent to stand trial will not
>get a trial. Now, a person who is found not competent may also not be
>a danger to himself or others. But, if one is incompetent to stand
>trial, why even bother with the psychological evaluations to determine
>if the person was mentally ill during the alleged commission of the
>crime? This is the dilemma. Should a person who is not competent to
>stand trial AUTOMATICALLY be locked up if he is not a danger to
>himself or others?
The problem I have with this is that the person who is not competent to
stand trial is also likely to be a danger to himself because he may not be
able to keep from being arrested again, due to inability to understand and
comply with what the law requires. I understand, as you have pointed out
above, that this is not what a competency hearing is trying to determine,
but I cannot see the value of returning mentally ill people to the streets
time and again so that they continue to place themselves in jeopardy by
involving themselves with prison, courts, and police. One thing a mental
institution can protect people from is such continued involvement with the
justice system. Don't tell me this doesn't happen to some of them. I know
it does from personal experience with a schizophrenic relative. Civil
rights are a cruel joke when someone won't take medication, repeatedly
engages in acts that threaten or harm others, and relatives are unable to
prevent such acts or get help from community mental health workers.
>>
>>>
>>>> Coming into
>>>>conflict with the law is dangerous for everyone, but more so for someone
>>who
>>>>does not understand what cops expect and what the law requires of them
>>>>(stopping when told to do so, giving identification upon request,
>>answering
>>>>questions about where you are going, submitting to arrest when informed
>>that
>>>>you are being arrested, refraining from interfering in police
activities,
>>>>refraining from cursing out or otherwise assaulting cops, and so on).
>>>
>>>It sounds like you are saying that the POLICE are the ones who are a
>>>danger to the person who is mentally disabled.
>>
>>
>>Obviously. so are other arrestees, the court system, and the general
>>public. when someone is seriously impaired they are unable to function in
>>many different contexts. That is what makes the world a dangerous place
for
>>them. I think this is very obvious.
>
>But this is "arresting" somebody for being arrested!!! Think about it.
>
No. It is hospitalizing someone for being arrested.
If they are not competent to participate in their own defense, there cannot
be an adequate trial of their guilt. An appointed legal guardian cannot
help a defense attorney know what questions to ask of witnesses or what
evidence might exculpate the accused -- they weren't there and don't know
the circumstances. My schizophrenic ex-relative came home one morning
covered with pink paint after wandering the streets all night . No one knew
how he got that way because no one was with him all night. If he committed
a crime and either didn't remember or couldn't accurately describe what
happened, how could an attorney or appointed legal guardian defend him?
Nancy
Gene Douglas
Nancy Stone wrote in message
|
|Agent@Large wrote in message ...
|
|snip
|
|
The issue isn't always a total either-or question, though sometimes
there are ironies that created a damned if you do or don't situation.
Whether the mentally ill person should be confined while awaiting
trial is a function of whether he is dangerous, whether he can become
competent before trial, and whether he will appear in court. If he
was persuaded to sign a false document, he is not dangerous. However,
whether he can become competent is often a matter of whether he will
take medication. In the case I mentioned elsewhere, the patient had
an alcohol psychosis, and one could not expect him to stop drinking
(the tx of choice) until he went to court. Confinement did have that
effect, and while he was hospitalized, they also removed a half-dollar
from his intenstine, and cured him of an STD. However, they did not
notify his wife that he had an STD, with the excuse that she was not
their responsibility.
One thing a mental
|institution can protect people from is such continued involvement
with the
|justice system. Don't tell me this doesn't happen to some of them.
I know
|it does from personal experience with a schizophrenic relative.
For how long does one continue protecting a person from possible
confinement, and by what means?
Civil
|rights are a cruel joke when someone won't take medication,
repeatedly
|engages in acts that threaten or harm others, and relatives are
unable to
|prevent such acts or get help from community mental health workers.
|
Trying to balance civil rights with other needs is a cruel joke on
everybody who tries to find a solution.
|>>
|>>>
cut
|>But this is "arresting" somebody for being arrested!!! Think about
it.
|>
|
|
|No. It is hospitalizing someone for being arrested.
|
|>>
cut
Agent@Large
<gene...@prodigy.net> wrote:
<snip>
>
>Consider: An old man passes out drunk on his sofa every day. He
>urinates on the sofa, himself, and every carpet in the house, every
>day. He gets most of his nutrition from wine, and perhaps some milk
>he drinks from time to time. He falls and hurts himself frequently.
>He fires a gun through the TV, because his wife won't go to the liquor
>store for him. His skin is covered with sores, perhaps from the
>urine, or malnutrition. He develops a psychosis a couple of times a
>year, and spends time in a hospital and a nursing home, until he
>clears up.
>
>He has not threatened to kill himself, and he is not sleeping outside
>in the cold. His family wants him in a nursing home, where he will
>receive 24 hour care. He doesn't want that, because in a nursing
>home, he would not be able to intimidate anybody to bring liquor to
>him.
>
>Is he a danger to himself?
In my opinion, not unless all three conditions below are present:
(1) the health complications, if left untreated, are life-threatening,
(2) the neglect of his medical treatment is caused by his mental
disorder, and
(3) his family cannot or will not provide the required medical care,
as determined by a physician.
A home health aide would probably be an appropriate referral for the
example you give above.
(My specialty is in child protective services, but I work for a
government Social Services agency that includes adult protective
services; I will look into this scenario for a better response.)
Gene Douglas
Agent@Large wrote in message ...
|On Thu, 07 Jan 1999 12:31:50 GMT, Silke-Maria Weineck
I think the laws use language like "imminent," or "clear and present."
That omits vague language like, "I wish I were dead." I once knew an
old man who was halfway crippled, who told stories about people taking
advantage of him. He would sometimes make a remark like, "one of
those days I'm going to cut their guts out." That wasn't imminent
enough to justify confining him. Besides, I would think, "that old
man? How could he hurt anybody?"
Years later, I dropped by my past place of employment, and asked about
him. I was told that he had killed a man. He had pulled a knife and
slashed the abdomens of several people, killing one of them. So his
prophecy had come true, including the plural and part of the body he
had in mind.
Gene Douglas
Agent@Large wrote in message ...
nursing home, but the family would have to get a lawyer. The lawyer
could be paid from his funds. Under threat of this, his
penny-pinching wife allowed him to enter a nursing home, and he was
led away under his protest (though without a court order.) It was
necessary to divide his property into two halves, and to use his half
of the bank account and social security checks to pay for the nursing
home, before Medicaid would start paying.
After he was there about six months, his wife was observed carrying an
oatmeal box into the room. She stayed there several hours and left,
with the oatmeal box. For several days after that, he ranted that he
wanted to go home (though he didn't have the power to do so under his
own steam. He might have limped down to a telephone and called a
taxi, but apparently didn't think of that.)
He eventually calmed down, stayed there for several years, and died.
Gene Douglas
Silke-Maria Weineck wrote in message ...
|: <sm...@umich.edu> wrote:
|
|:>In sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Agent@Large
<ag...@ie-com.com> wrote:
|:>: It is ludicrous to suggest that mentally ill persons should
|:>: be subjected to the exact same procedures and dispositions as
the
|:>: average person by the criminal justice system.
|:>
|:>But it is not ludicrous (though controversial and legitimate
object of
|:>argument) to say that mentally ill people should be able to chose
to be
|:>subjected to the exact same procedures. Especially if it gets them
two
|:>years in prison instead of a lifetime in a mental hospital.
|
|: This is what a court appointed Legal Guardian, working with the
|: accused, and the attorney for the accused, would decide.
|
|Well, no -- the Guardian would work in the interest of his client as
_he
|or she_ perceives it. I would like to see people to have the right
to act
|_against_ their own interests as others perceive them. There is a
risk
|entailed, but I think it's worth it.
A court of law tries to ascertain information. This includes
information about what happened, and information about what he wants.
A guardian can't know either, and he can't be presumed to be able or
willing to cooperate with a guardian.
Witness the 1930's. A mental hospital, where a person is kept,
presumed to be retarded. Possibly he is just poor and ignorant,
homeless, and possibly under age. He is brought into a room, where
there are three persons behind a desk, and a couple of people he
doesn't know in chairs sitting beside him. One of them is a lawyer,
spending a few minutes as his guardian, and picking up a few dollars
for his trouble.
A man behind the desk asks, "Are they treating you O.K.? Is the food
all right? You don't mind being sterilized, do you? How are you
getting along with your friends? Well, that's good. I'm glad to meet
you today. Good luck."
|
|[...]
Agent@Large
<gene...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>Agent@Large wrote in message ...
<snip>
>An appointed legal guardian can be used if the
> |person cannot understand the charges or cannot cooperate with his
> |attorney. Then, if found guilty, the judge should take into
> |consideration the person's state of mind and sentence him
>accordingly.
> |
>Nobody but the accused can know what happened when he was there. The
>person can not be presumed to be able to cooperate with a legal
>guardian.
This is true, but other than advocating on behalf of the defendant,
the legal guardian ONLY needs to understand the legal proceedings
pertaining to the charges, and to be able to cooperate with the
defendant's attorney, These are the salient forensic issues, I think,
not whether the defendant can cooperate with the guardian. (Some
persons will not cooperate with ANYBODY.) Of course, selection of the
legal guardian needs to be made carefully by the judge. Perhaps a
family member would be appropriate in some cases.
> Too often, these guardians have not had the defendant's
>interest in mind, and were just collecting a fee to process
>"material."
Naturally, there would need to be careful consideration in choosing
the guardian. Hopefully, the attorney will be attentive to any
exploited vulnerability of his client. As you pointed out, there are
precedents (e.g., the elderly).
Again, I do not expect a perfect solution to such problems, but I
think the guardianship appointment would result - overall - in a more
fair procedure, and an improvement in providing the mentally disabled
defendant due process (which is guaranteed by our Constitution),
compared to just locking him up indefinitely solely because he is
found not competent to stand trial.
Gene Douglas
Agent@Large wrote in message ...
|
|>An appointed legal guardian can be used if the
|> |person cannot understand the charges or cannot cooperate with his
|> |attorney. Then, if found guilty, the judge should take into
|> |consideration the person's state of mind and sentence him
|>accordingly.
And what would the guardian do, that the attorney can not do, if the
attorney has his client's best interest at heart? How can the
defendant communicate any better with a guardian than he can with his
attorney?
|> |
|>Nobody but the accused can know what happened when he was there.
The
|>person can not be presumed to be able to cooperate with a legal
|>guardian.
|
|This is true, but other than advocating on behalf of the defendant,
|the legal guardian ONLY needs to understand the legal proceedings
|pertaining to the charges, and to be able to cooperate with the
|defendant's attorney, These are the salient forensic issues, I
think,
|not whether the defendant can cooperate with the guardian. (Some
|persons will not cooperate with ANYBODY.) Of course, selection of
the
|legal guardian needs to be made carefully by the judge. Perhaps a
|family member would be appropriate in some cases.
|
|> Too often, these guardians have not had the defendant's
|>interest in mind, and were just collecting a fee to process
|>"material."
|
|Naturally, there would need to be careful consideration in choosing
|the guardian. Hopefully, the attorney will be attentive to any
|exploited vulnerability of his client. As you pointed out, there are
|precedents (e.g., the elderly).
I'd hate to rely on "hopefully." It is likely the court will appoint
a guardian, who is somebody who doesn't know the defendant at all.
The more time he spends on him, the less money he makes per hour.
Likewise, the attorney is likely to be dealing with an indigent and
making $500 for the whole trial. It doesn't make sense to invest a
lot of time in it, if he expects to be making $100 to $200 an hour.
|
|Again, I do not expect a perfect solution to such problems, but I
|think the guardianship appointment would result - overall - in a
more
|fair procedure, and an improvement in providing the mentally
disabled
|defendant due process (which is guaranteed by our Constitution),
|compared to just locking him up indefinitely solely because he is
|found not competent to stand trial.
|
I described certain guardians in another post. Sometimes they are
just window dressing.
Nancy Stone
Agent@Large wrote in message
<5EABF481727089D0.A929F927...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
t>...
>On Thu, 7 Jan 1999 07:33:07 -0000, "Nancy Stone"
><dans...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>Agent@Large wrote in message ...
>
>>>defendant has "sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer
>>>with a reasonable degree of rational understanding - and whether he
>>>has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings
>>>against him" ( Dusky v. United States, 1960, p. 402 )."
>>>(Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402) *
>
>>someone was sane at the moment they committed a crime. Ability to conform
>>one's actions to knowledge of what the law requires.
>
>determining whether someone is capable of standing trial. Determining
>whether someone was "sane" at the moment they committed a crime is a
The word "it" in my quote above refers to my previous comments about ability
to conform one's actions to law. It does not refer to Dusky.
snip
>In the prevailing system, he could theoretically spend the rest of his
>life in a psychiatric institution for being accused of painting that
>police car pink - AND HE MIGHT HAVE BEEN INNOCENT!
>If he was found to be not competent to stand trial, off he would go,
>no trial, no presumption of innocence, just locked up until he was
>"cured" - end of story.
The existence of a pink car and the paint on him would provide strong
circumstantial evidence. But even if he were innocent, he would be better
off in the hospital until cured. Many families feel as I do because they
are the ones who have to cope with these situations.
>
>(No offence meant towards your ex-relative, by the way.)
None taken.
Nancy
sisyphus
you dehumanize yourself.
Norm
Agent@Large
<sm...@umich.edu> wrote:
>In sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Gene Douglas <gene...@prodigy.net> wrote:
<snip>
>: I think the laws use language like "imminent," or "clear and present."
>
>Yes, thank you -- I have tried several times to bring up this distinction,
>but it has always reverted back to general talk of "danger to themselves,"
>which I find unsatisfying, because we're all a danger to ourselves as long
>as we can move.
Point well taken. That is correct. We always include the terms
"imminent risk of harm" in our abuse and neglect petitions at CPS.
Agent@Large
<dans...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Agent@Large wrote in message ...
>>"Competency to stand trial involves the question of whether a criminal
>>defendant has "sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer
>>with a reasonable degree of rational understanding - and whether he
>>has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings
>>against him" ( Dusky v. United States, 1960, p. 402 )."
>>(Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402) *
>... I believe it is part of the basis for determining whether
>someone was sane at the moment they committed a crime. Ability to conform
>one's actions to knowledge of what the law requires.
Not exactly. _Dusky_ is about "competency;" it's the basis for
determining whether someone is capable of standing trial. Determining
whether someone was "sane" at the moment they committed a crime is a
different type of evaluation. "Sanity" is mainly the ability to know
right from wrong, and the ability to understand the consequences of
one's behavior. This varies among states. For example, in Florida, a
person is considered "insane" when: (1) He had a mental infirmity,
disease, or defect. and (2) Because of this condition he did not know
what he was doing or its consequences or although he knew what he was
doing and its consequences, he did not know it was wrong.
As you can see, being "not competent to stand trial" is totally
different from being "insane." One can have a mental disability, but
still be (legally) "sane," if they know right from wrong.
The variations are:
(1) One may be "not competent" to stand trial, and be "sane." -
(2) One may be "not competent" to stand trial, and be "insane."
(3) One may be "competent" to stand trial, and be "insane."
(4) One may be "competent" to stand trial and be "sane."
>snip
>>You are confusing two fields: law and psychology. No one is arrested
>>for being mentally ill - period. They are arrested for breaking a law.
>>Now, WERE THEY MENTALLY ILL when they broke the law?, and ARE THEY
>>COMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL? are two separate questions. The answers are
>>determined by TWO evaluations. They may have broken the law due to
>>their mental illness - THAT is what psychological evaluations are all
>>about. The person who is found not competent to stand trial will not
>>get a trial. Now, a person who is found not competent may also not be
>>a danger to himself or others. But, if one is incompetent to stand
>>trial, why even bother with the psychological evaluations to determine
>>if the person was mentally ill during the alleged commission of the
>>crime? This is the dilemma. Should a person who is not competent to
>>stand trial AUTOMATICALLY be locked up if he is not a danger to
>>himself or others?
>
>
>The problem I have with this is that the person who is not competent to
>stand trial is also likely to be a danger to himself because he may not be
>able to keep from being arrested again, due to inability to understand and
>comply with what the law requires. I understand, as you have pointed out
>above, that this is not what a competency hearing is trying to determine,
>but I cannot see the value of returning mentally ill people to the streets
>time and again so that they continue to place themselves in jeopardy by
>involving themselves with prison, courts, and police.
I sympathize with you. I can only respond by saying many people have
trouble seeing the value of returning "normal" habitual criminals to
the streets as well. This is probably an inadequate response, but as I
have said earlier, there are some behaviors that we are going to have
to accept if we want to remain free ourselves.
> One thing a mental
>institution can protect people from is such continued involvement with the
>justice system. Don't tell me this doesn't happen to some of them. I know
>it does from personal experience with a schizophrenic relative. Civil
>rights are a cruel joke when someone won't take medication, repeatedly
>engages in acts that threaten or harm others, and relatives are unable to
>prevent such acts or get help from community mental health workers.
Again, I share your frustration. But, where do we draw the line for
locking people up for their own good? I would like the line drawn when
they are a danger to themselves and others. Locking them up for
getting themselves locked sounds too much like "double-jeopardy."
>>>>> Coming into conflict with the law is dangerous for everyone,
>>>>>but more so for someone who does not understand what cops
>>>>>expect and what the law requires of them (stopping when told to
>>>>>do so, giving identification upon request, answering questions about
>>>>>where you are going, submitting to arrest when informed that
>>>>>you are being arrested, refraining from interfering in police activities,
>>>>>refraining from cursing out or otherwise assaulting cops, and so on).
>>>>It sounds like you are saying that the POLICE are the ones who are a
>>>>danger to the person who is mentally disabled.
>>>Obviously. so are other arrestees, the court system, and the general
>>>public. when someone is seriously impaired they are unable to function in
>>>many different contexts. That is what makes the world a dangerous place
>>>for them. I think this is very obvious.
>>But this is "arresting" somebody for being arrested!!! Think about it.
>>
>No. It is hospitalizing someone for being arrested.
I am referring to one's freedom being taken from them as a consequence
of being taken into legal custody. Nevertheless, I don't think a
person should be hospitalized for breaking a law; he should be
hospitalized if he is sick or mentally disabled. To accommodate sick
or mentally disabled criminals, some hospitals have a forensic ward,
and some penal institutions have "special-needs" tiers or blocks. To
place a criminal in a regular hospital ward, or to place a sick or
mentally disabled person in a normal prison population is simply
terrible. We must separate our concepts of criminality and mental
disability. Where they interface is within the domain of forensic
psychology.
>
>If they are not competent to participate in their own defense, there cannot
>be an adequate trial of their guilt. An appointed legal guardian cannot
>help a defense attorney know what questions to ask of witnesses or what
>evidence might exculpate the accused -- they weren't there and don't know
>the circumstances. My schizophrenic ex-relative came home one morning
>covered with pink paint after wandering the streets all night . No one knew
>how he got that way because no one was with him all night. If he committed
>a crime and either didn't remember or couldn't accurately describe what
>happened, how could an attorney or appointed legal guardian defend him?
The legal guardian ONLY has to understand the legal procedures and
cooperate with the attorney. But in this case, maybe a guardian could
ask questions around the neighborhood and find witnesses to aid in
your ex-relative's defense.
The attorney can offer alternative explanations. (Sure, it would be
easier if the attorney knew what really happened, but in reality, most
defense attorneys don't know the whole truth in many cases, anyway.)
He can use his knowledge of the law to serve the best interests of
your ex-relative. (I think a common mistake is thinking that the
guardian has to serve the defendant's "best interests.") NO. That is
the job of the attorney.)
If your ex-relative could not remember what happened, so be it. He
technically does not have to prove anything. It is up to the State to
prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
If there is no evidence that can exculpate your ex-relative, but there
is enough reasonable evidence that he did commit the crime, then
probably a jury would find him guilty. That he cannot remember what
happened and that he is diagnosed with schizophrenia would be facts
used for dispositional purposes: for something minor, like painting a
police car pink, perhaps 30 days, a fine, probation (supervision) or
some combination; if he killed somebody, however, then perhaps a
25-years to life sentence in a "special-needs" section of a penal
institution, or a psychiatric institution for criminals.
In the prevailing system, he could theoretically spend the rest of his
life in a psychiatric institution for being accused of painting that
police car pink - AND HE MIGHT HAVE BEEN INNOCENT!
If he was found to be not competent to stand trial, off he would go,
no trial, no presumption of innocence, just locked up until he was
"cured" - end of story.
(No offence meant towards your ex-relative, by the way.)
Elizabeth
Gene Douglas <gene...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>My point was, incarceration is incarceration (getting locked up.) A
>mental hospital is decidedly more unpleasant than a prison. And if a
>person "does life" because he is unable to become competent to stand
>trial, there is at the very least, an irony involved there.
Gene, a question, and I'm not just being facetious...have you ever spent the
night in a psych hospital or in prison?
For that matter, are you saying that all psych hospitals are alike and that
all prisons are alike? I think there is a lot of variation within each
category.
-elizabeth
Gene Douglas
Nancy Stone wrote in message
|
|Agent@Large wrote in message
|<5EABF481727089D0.A929F927...@library-proxy.air
news.ne
|t>...
|>On Thu, 7 Jan 1999 07:33:07 -0000, "Nancy Stone"
|><dans...@earthlink.net> wrote:
|>
|>>Agent@Large wrote in message ...
|>
cut
|
|snip
|
|>In the prevailing system, he could theoretically spend the rest of
his
|>life in a psychiatric institution for being accused of painting
that
|>police car pink - AND HE MIGHT HAVE BEEN INNOCENT!
|>If he was found to be not competent to stand trial, off he would
go,
|>no trial, no presumption of innocence, just locked up until he was
|>"cured" - end of story.
|
|
|The existence of a pink car and the paint on him would provide
strong
|circumstantial evidence. But even if he were innocent, he would be
better
|off in the hospital until cured. Many families feel as I do because
they
|are the ones who have to cope with these situations.
|
I think Szaz has made the point that mental illness is often defined
by the rest of society, to the degree that the person is inconvenient
or annoying to others. So if a person behaves in ways that we call
bad manners, or which disrupt our lives, we call him "crazy" or
something, and we want to get rid of him, if we can't get rid of his
difference. This is mostly for our good, not for his.
Agent@Large
<dans...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>The existence of a pink car and the paint on him would provide strong
>circumstantial evidence. But even if he were innocent, he would be better
>off in the hospital until cured. Many families feel as I do because they
>are the ones who have to cope with these situations.
And I agree with you that he might be better off - but that isn't the
point of my position. The question one needs to ask is, Do we, as a
society, have the right to imprison or hospitalize someone against
their will, who is not an imminent risk to himself or others, simply
because we think he would be "better off" or for the sake of
conveniences?
I know that sounds like a "lofty," idealistic question, having no
relation to the real world, but it does make me a little nervous if
one answers this question affirmatively.
Gene Douglas
Elizabeth wrote in message ...
|In article <SPPM990104...@cmhcsys.cmhc.com>,
|Gene Douglas <gene...@prodigy.net> wrote:
|>My point was, incarceration is incarceration (getting locked up.)
A
|>mental hospital is decidedly more unpleasant than a prison. And if
a
|>person "does life" because he is unable to become competent to
stand
|>trial, there is at the very least, an irony involved there.
|
|Gene, a question, and I'm not just being facetious...have you ever
spent the
|night in a psych hospital or in prison?
|
|For that matter, are you saying that all psych hospitals are alike
and that
|all prisons are alike? I think there is a lot of variation within
each
|category.
|
|-elizabeth
|
sense. Nobody actually gets a choice of hospital or prison. The
original statement was that some people who are accused of a crime and
are hospitalized, never get a trial, because they can never become
competent to go to trial. Consequently, they end up doing life in the
hospital. Others are found not guilty for reason of insanity, and
because there is no way to predict whether a person is dangerous, they
may also end up doing life in the hospital. One poster countered that
a hospital is not a prison, which is actually irrelevant, so long as
you are confined either way.
Gene Douglas
Silke-Maria Weineck wrote in message ...
|In sci.psychology.psychotherapy Gene Douglas <gene...@prodigy.net>
wrote:
|: Silke-Maria Weineck wrote in message ...
|[...]
|: |There may be no question in your mind, but there are a few in
|: |mine. People present dangers to themselves all the time -- they
|: |drive cars very fast or engage in high-risk sports, they smoke in
|: bed,
|: |they do all kinds of dangerous things. So clearly the criterium
|: "presents
|: |a danger to himself" is not adequate to deprive people of their
|: freedom.
|
|: urinates on the sofa, himself, and every carpet in the house, every
|: day. He gets most of his nutrition from wine, and perhaps some
milk
|: he drinks from time to time. He falls and hurts himself
frequently.
|: He fires a gun through the TV, because his wife won't go to the
liquor
|: store for him. His skin is covered with sores, perhaps from the
|: urine, or malnutrition. He develops a psychosis a couple of times
a
|: year, and spends time in a hospital and a nursing home, until he
|: clears up.
|: He has not threatened to kill himself, and he is not sleeping
outside
|: in the cold. His family wants him in a nursing home, where he will
|: receive 24 hour care. He doesn't want that, because in a nursing
|: home, he would not be able to intimidate anybody to bring liquor to
|: him.
|
think
|I'd like to see his gun license suspended...
In the real life case, no license was required, though one would
wonder about his wife's not taking the gun from his coffee table when
he was asleep. However, his shooting the TV was to intimidate his
wife, and he had not threatened to shoot anybody. There was doubt as
to his mental ability, which would not make anyone's safety certain.
Apart from that, I think it
|would be good if he knew his options -- if, knowing his options, he
choses
|to lie drunk on the couch and have his skin covered with sores, he
should
|be allowed to make that choice.
Of course, being an extreme alcoholic, his options were not subject to
rationality.
I'm not saying this is a happy situation
|-- happy would be, the guy realizes this is not the good life, he can
have
|a better life elsewhere, he goes to the nursing home which turns out
to be
|actually a clean, well-run, respectful place that won't bankrupt his
|family.
And also a place with regular hours, where food is brought on a
schedule, night is for sleeping, and nobody will bring him alcohol.
But I think that the freedom to chose must, if it is to mean
|anything, include the freedom to chose unwisely and to piss your
life
|away.
|
However, if the person does not have the faculties to make a rational
choice, where is the reality of a freedom to choose?
| : Is he a danger to himself?
|
cut
|
|: How
|: many threatened or attempted suicides have been glad they did not,
|: after some time has passed?
|
|I realize that this is a question that will divide people, and it
is, in
|the end, a philosophical one.
It's also a practical one. There are many, many people walking
around today, who seriously considered suicide 5 years ago, 20 years
ago, and are glad they did not succeed. A famous example is Albert
Sabin, developer of the live polio vaccine. He had a disease that was
considered incurable, which left him flat on his back forever. He was
wanting to die, but needed somebody to help him. Then he recovered,
and went back to work.
|
cut
|
|: Even if they don't know what they are doing? What if the person
has
|: Alzheimer's? Should the nursing home let them walk out in the
snow,
|: just because they are asking to do that?
|
|Yes -- especially if they haven't been legally declared incompetent
or
|however you word that these days. But watch over them, too.
|
Sometimes the court hearing is just a ritual. Anybody can see they
are walking around the nursing home not knowing what day it is. If
they walk out into the snow and get lost, they are not making a free
choice. They simply don't know what they are doing.
|: According to Nancy,
|: |there are those who desire the institution -- they will come
back.
|: Keep
|: |the doors open.
|: |
|: O.K. You're being facetious. My mistake.
|
|No, I'm not. I know the anecdotes don't prove much, but there are
times,
|when my brother checks himself in voluntarily. This works and
actually
|does appear to do him good. When he's brought in by force, he
invariably
|comes out worse than he was before -- and if he didn't have my
parents,
|whose heroism I admire, he might not get the intense after-hospital
care
|that builds him up again.
|
|smw
Yet when a person is not able to think, he is not able to make
rational choices. Sacrificing those people in order to benefit those
who are so able, is a cold blooded policy in the name of abstract
philosophy. It isn't like allowing pornography to protect political
speech. In this case, it is a matter of disposing of people who can't
help themselves.
Nancy Stone
Gene Douglas wrote in message
>
>Nancy Stone wrote in message
><7744bn$54$2...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> |
> |Agent@Large wrote in message
>
>|<5EABF481727089D0.A929F927...@library-proxy.air
>news.ne
> |t>...
> |><dans...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> |>
> |>>Agent@Large wrote in message ...
> |>
> |
> |snip
> |
> |>In the prevailing system, he could theoretically spend the rest of
>his
> |>life in a psychiatric institution for being accused of painting
>that
> |>police car pink - AND HE MIGHT HAVE BEEN INNOCENT!
> |>If he was found to be not competent to stand trial, off he would
>go,
> |>no trial, no presumption of innocence, just locked up until he was
> |>"cured" - end of story.
> |
> |
>strong
> |circumstantial evidence. But even if he were innocent, he would be
>better
> |off in the hospital until cured. Many families feel as I do because
>they
> |are the ones who have to cope with these situations.
> |
>by the rest of society, to the degree that the person is inconvenient
>or annoying to others. So if a person behaves in ways that we call
>bad manners, or which disrupt our lives, we call him "crazy" or
>something, and we want to get rid of him, if we can't get rid of his
>difference. This is mostly for our good, not for his.
>
This neglects the fact that most individuals with schizophrenia or major
depression suffer. Treatment is intended to reduce their suffering.
Nancy
Gene Douglas
Silke-Maria Weineck wrote in message ...
|In sci.psychology.psychotherapy Gene Douglas <gene...@prodigy.net>
wrote:
|: Silke-Maria Weineck wrote in message ...
|[...]
||: |
|: However, if the person does not have the faculties to make a
rational
|: choice, where is the reality of a freedom to choose?
|
|See above. Since you take everybody else's word for it, you just may
have
|to take his word for it, as well, even though you don't think his
choices
|are wise. There is, actually, no law in this country that obliges us
to
|act rationally or in our own interest.
|
When you have somebody walking around in the hall of a nursing home
yelling (at nobody in particular) "I can't get my pants off!" and then
you let her walk out in the snow and get lost, based on some
philosophical view of freedom of choice, you haven't allowed the
person to make a choice, because she doesn't even understand the facts
of the case (you could freeze and die, you will get lost, etc.)
|[...]
|
|: |: How
|: |: many threatened or attempted suicides have been glad they did
not,
|: |: after some time has passed?
|: |
|: |I realize that this is a question that will divide people, and
it
|: is, in
|: |the end, a philosophical one.
|
|: It's also a practical one. There are many, many people walking
|: around today, who seriously considered suicide 5 years ago, 20
years
|: ago, and are glad they did not succeed.
|
|And good for them and those who love them, too. At the same time,
there
|are many choices I'm glad I didn't make and I still had the right to
make
|them and nobody took that right away from me. And yes, some of them
are
|irreversible as well.
Had you attempted to commit suicide, and someone took that "right"
from you, you would probably be glad today that they had.
| It's like that, in my mind -- I believe both in the right to kill
|yourself and in the right of trying to stop someone you love or care
for
|from killing himself. So I can see both sides of this issue. I'm
|interested here in the meaning of freedom, and in the meaning of
justice
|-- which has to be tempered by mercy in order to remain just.
|
|
cut
|
|: Yet when a person is not able to think, he is not able to make
|: rational choices. Sacrificing those people in order to benefit
those
|: who are so able, is a cold blooded policy in the name of abstract
|: philosophy. It isn't like allowing pornography to protect
political
|: speech. In this case, it is a matter of disposing of people who
can't
|: help themselves.
|
|I disagree. Those who are truly "not able to think" will indeed not
be
|able to make a choice. Mostly this concerns people of whom others
thik
|that they are thinking wrongly. This is where the danger lies, and
this is
|not "abstract philosophy" (try Hegel's essay "Who thinks abstractly"
some
|time, it's fun). Inability to think is very rare.
|
|smw
|
|
We also have to consider what thinking is. It is what our brain
material allows us to do. If the tissue isn't functioning right, you
don't just sacrifice a person because you have a philosophy relating
to free will. You recognize that he is a victim of a malfunction, and
deserves to be protected from the effects of that malfunction.
Tim McNamara
<gene...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> We have to go back to the original discussion for this to make any
> sense. Nobody actually gets a choice of hospital or prison.
I dunno. Seems to me that criminals make a choice when committing a
crime. Criminals who try to get out of a prison sentence by claiming
"insanity" (whatever *that* means) are making a choice. I think
"nobody" is overly sweeping.
The original discussion was about people committed to a mental
institution for an indefinite period because:
1. They're being held because they're not competent to stand trial;
or
2. They *might* commit another crime.
The differences between committment and incarceration are much smaller
here than the differences between someone who is jailed for a crime and
someone who is committed because they are too mentally ill to live
safely in the community.
Tim McNamara
Weineck <sm...@umich.edu> wrote:
> : When you have somebody walking around in the hall of a nursing home
> : yelling (at nobody in particular) "I can't get my pants off!" and then
> : you let her walk out in the snow and get lost, based on some
> : philosophical view of freedom of choice, you haven't allowed the
> : person to make a choice, because she doesn't even understand the facts
> : of the case (you could freeze and die, you will get lost, etc.)
>
> So tell her. Ask her whether she really wants to go out. Offer to get
> her coat and mittens. Go with her. It's not so hard to treat people with
> respect once you've made up your mind that this is what you want to do,
> and stick with the resolve.
Hmmmm. I think that at this point the discussion is furthering
differences and seems to be wandering rather afield. We began by
talking about indefinite psychiatric placement vs incarceration, about
essentially "thought policing" when mentally ill individuals are held
involuntarily because the *might* commit or repeat a crime.
As a geropsychologist by trade, I think the example of people with
dementias is not especially cogent to the discussion. With a dementing
illness, there is little reason to hope for successful treatment or
improvement in the person's condition. The newer cholinergics such as
Aricept can provide some temporary improvement in some cases of
Alzheimer's dementia; B12 and folate treatment can sometimes stave off
or minimize Korsakoff's Syndrome and can show some improvement in the
mental status of individuals with alcoholic dementia. But in general,
you are pot holding someone with dementia in the hopes they will clear
up someday and become competent.
Nursing homes essentially provide custodial care, not primary
treatment. The "warehousing" of people in them is consistent with the
organization and structure of these facilities. Hopefully more is done
for residents than this; Federal law and State laws have been developed
since 1987 to address this, as required under the Ombudsman Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1987 (OBRA) which went into effect in 1990. The
development of alternative program structures such as the "Eden
Alternative" deonstrates that more can be done to improve the quality
of life within the tight constraints of nursing home budgeting (which
gets tighter every year as state and federal funding fails to keep up
with the increasing costs of providing care).
But I digress again (what a surprise). The use of nursing homes in the
discussion does little to further it. The practical reality is that
one *can't* put a coat on the woman and take her for a walk out into
the snow, even if the staff does want to " treat people with respect."
Doing so means 11 other residents are deprived of their access to care
(the average staffing pattern in a nursing home is one nurse's aide per
about 12 residents and one nurse per 24-40 residents, in my state).
Nursing homes need to think preventively and find ways to keep the
residents interested in appropriate, useful and enjoyable activities so
that they're *not* wandering the halls trying to get outside.