Define Mentally Ill...
Central DuPage Hospital Active Shooter Exercise at College of DuPage 2014
With the rash of gun violence offenses recently, the list of reasons why are long and varied. Mental illness is thrown out there as both an excuse to avoid punishment and as a legitimate reason for why someone would commit a crime of murder. Can it be a legitimate excuse for taking the life of another human being? Can it be proven that all shooters have some sort of "mental illness"?
According to the American Psychiatric Association, a mental illness is a health issue that affects ones thinking, behavior, and or emotions. This can cover anything from anxiety to schizophrenia, to Alzheimer's disease. Also the A.P.A. states that in the United States, nearly 1 out of 5 people suffer, at some time, from mental illness, and 1 out of 24 have a serious mental illness. Mental illness can negatively affect our ability to have healthy relationships, and the ability to function in society and the community. Does this mean that socially awkward or solitary people have a mental illness? The vague definition of mental illness would seem too broad of a scope to be used as an reason behind violence. If at all possible, it needs to be narrowed down.
Misconceptions arise concerning the "mentally ill" and violent acts. Horror movies and some television dramas portray mentally ill people as psychotic and sadistic people fueled by rage. These images can be burned into the minds of the viewers. Joel Miller, Executive Director and CEO of the American Mental Health Counselors Association, states that most who are suffering from a serious mental illness are never prone to committing violent acts. He states that only between 3 and 5 percent of all violent acts, including the use of guns, can be linked to a serious mental illness. In an article published in the Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health on violence and mental illness, more often, those who suffer from mental illness tend to be the victims of violent attacks rather than aggressors. With these facts in mind, it makes it difficult to point to one specific illness or a past incident in life to be a link to an act of gun violence. Everyone is different. The way one person does something is not necessarily the same for another, and the way one person reasons things in their mind is not necessarily the same as someone else. With this in mind, it doesn't seem possible to accurately deduce that mental illness specifically causes violent acts.
Can it be proven that a shooter was not in their right mind? For some it may be possible. If they have a record of past violence or victimization, then maybe a case can be made. Unfortunately, if someone is arrested for a violent act and they say that they were "not in their right mind", it can be like trying to prove that someone doesn't suffer from back pain. Doctors can run all of the tests possible, but if the patient still complains of pain, then they might believe them and prescribe something for it. When considering a mental illness as a differing thought pattern from the "norm", then yes violent offenders have an illness, but does that excuse them? The area of proof is too grey and too varying to use as a way of finding out why and excusing someone from the punishment that would befall one guilty of the offence.
You make the connection here about "record of past violence" and in reading some of the other bloggers this week here, what seems to be missed is the connection between multiple phone calls to law enforcement (Nasim Najafi Aghdam and Nikolas Cruz) from family members, neighbors, etc. It seems that those in close proximity to the potential shooter have good data that law enforcement seems either to ignore or to not be legally able to act upon. Perhaps moving from discussion of mental illness and moving into a discussion of more proactive actions once problematic calls have been made about individuals could be a step in the right direction.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that mental health is very uncertain to diagnose with an individual, speaks a lot. Mental health is very complex, as i believe every individual battles inner mental challenges to an extent, as it comes with the challenges of life. A point i would make is many would be quick to blame an individual who may be the cause of a shooting, but are sheer to look into details of causation. For example, an individual who may be bullied may be driven to the point of suicide and may take his/her own life as seen very often, but if they do that, they are considered to have been mentally ill. The individuals who may have bullied them may be home free, but because they took their own life, then they have a mental illness? It doesn't make sense one bit. Society needs to grow up and acknowledge facts rather then assumption.
ReplyDeleteWow! I thought the connection (or lack thereof) between serious mental illness and crime was very interesting. 3 to 5 percent is much lower than I would have guessed. Also I thought it was good that you pointed out the uniqueness of individuals and that how at its core it can be almost impossible to really predict the actions of another. It was also interesting how you discussed the ambiguity and gray area in defining mental illness and how hard it can be to truly determine where someone is mentally sick or not. Overall this was an engaging read.
ReplyDeleteI liked how you said area of proof is too grey to actually proove if someone is actually suffering from mental illness. Sometimes it seems like attorneys use mental illness as safety net to fall back on to protect their clients. So far this tactic has been working in the courts because there is no way to be certain whether or not a person is mentally ill or faking ilnnes for a more lenient sentence.
ReplyDelete