We're too quick to use "mental illness" as an explanation for violence.

[HereSince1628]

Crazy Talk By Vaughan BellPosted Sunday, Jan. 9, 2011, at 12:52 AM ET

Shortly after Jared Lee Loughner had been identified as the alleged shooter of Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, online sleuths turned up pages of rambling text and videos he had created. A wave of amateur diagnoses soon followed, most of which concluded that Loughner was not so much a political extremist as a man suffering from "paranoid schizophrenia."

For many, the investigation will stop there. No need to explore personal motives, out-of-control grievances or distorted political anger. The mere mention of mental illness is explanation enough. This presumed link between psychiatric disorders and violence has become so entrenched in the public consciousness that the entire weight of the medical evidence is unable to shift it. Severe mental illness, on its own, is not an explanation for violence, but don't expect to hear that from the media in the coming weeks.

Seena Fazel is an Oxford University psychiatrist who has led the most extensive scientific studies to date of the links between violence and two of the most serious psychiatric diagnoses—schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, either of which can lead to delusions, hallucinations, or some other loss of contact with reality. Rather than looking at individual cases, or even single studies, Fazel's team analyzed all the scientific findings they could find. As a result, they can say with confidence that psychiatric diagnoses tell us next to nothing about someone's propensity or motive for violence.

A 2009 analysis of nearly 20,000 individuals concluded that increased risk of violence was associated with drug and alcohol problems, regardless of whether the person had schizophrenia. Two similar analyses on bipolar patients showed, along similar lines, that the risk of violent crime is fractionally increased by the illness, while it goes up substantially among those who are dependent on intoxicating substances. In other words, it's likely that some of the people in your local bar are at greater risk of committing murder than your average person with mental illness.

<more>
http://www.slate.com/id/2280619 /

[mix]

1. K&R nt

[xchrom]

2. fascinating. nt

[affrayer]

3. It's the Mix!

It's not only that these people are unbalanced but that the right wingers tell them that murder is socially acceptable as an act of political will.

Question: Why did Jared Lee Loughner think that if he shot and killed Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords his life would improve?

Answer: The right wing politicians told him so...

[HereSince1628]

4. At this point, no one knows what Loughner thought.

because there is no statement from Loughner or his designated representative. His thoughts are of interest because they could reveal his motivations, but they haven't been shared.

I can't find any expert evidence on the web for the presumption you suggest that the unbalanced are somehow more gullible/pliable/malleable to extremist rhetoric. If you have a link to such evidence I'd appreciate having it.

[affrayer]

5. Even so

...because there is no statement from Loughner or his designated representative.

And would you trust such a statement made after he was arrested?

What we do have is a fare amount of material he posted to communicate his "cough cough" beliefs. Many of those beliefs can be traced back to right wing pundits like Beck or http://www.talk2action.org/story/2011/1/8/21576/68127">Chip Berlet.

None the less, absent any imaginable excuse that offers an even remotely plausible reason for his actions, this individual must be considered bonkers...

But just being bonkers doesn't explain why he targeted Giffords.

[janedum]

6. How convenient ... "he was mentally ill" ..

Lots of mentally ill people ENJOY listening Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Palin.
SICK MINDS THINK ALIKE!

[affrayer]

9. They have an excuse...

The republicans didn't force a mentally ill person to drink the Kool Aid...

[janedum]

12. RIght-WIngers will ALWAYS have a way of DISTORTING the truth.

Fact = Fiction = all the same to the RW scum.

[HereSince1628]

19. Actually, it's human nature to distort the truth for self-security

A lot of studies have been done that show this. Things as simple as changing our minds when presented with evidence that we are wrong are next to impossible because we will distort perception in order to protect what we already believe.

[affrayer]

37. Now That's the Truth...

When it comes to right wingers, why tell the truth when all they have is lies?

[FSogol]

7. Well, guns can't be the problem so what else could it be?

:shrug: :sarcasm:

[HereSince1628]

16. People want to feel safe, we need a causative agent to blame.

And we are impatient to feel safe, so we activate beliefs that give us a sense of psychic safety.

We can and do blame guns, the laws that make them available, the environment of fear of our fellow citizens that makes guns necessary...We blame extremist rhetoric and it's frequently jingoistic nature of calls to battle against 'the other party', eliminating political enemies, blame mentally ill, blame mentally ill for being more easily manipulated by extremist rhetoric than the rest of 'US" (a phenomenon that is unproven, but comfortable separates 'us' from 'them.'

In short we need a scapegoat to blame for our anxiety and from whom we can separate. We not only need loving and caring gods in our pantheon, we need devils to blame when things get threatening.

Blaming the mental illness provides all these things for people, who assume that they are mentally well. This sets up the 'not one of us' split that liberates all manner myth to be heaped upon mental illness and the mentally ill without challenge. It isn't that the mentally ill don't do violence they do just like mentally well people. Particularly mentally well people who are intoxicated with alcohol or other drugs that increase impulsivity.

As you will probably be able to see in following replies to this op, challenging an activated psychic defense results in irritability and aggression in apparently mentally well people who need to psychically distance themselves from the danger.

[stray cat]

8. We are too selective to embrace murderers who fit our politics

If he were a Muslim and murdered people in a military base progressives would defend him as mentally Ill.

[affrayer]

10. Just Out Of Curiousity...

What "left wing murderers" have the left wing embraced?

[hobbit709]

20. I haven't heard of any.

[HereSince1628]

21. BION, the assertion is environmentalists (lefties) and the unabomber

and also environmentalists and car dealership fires.

I don't think that those things were ever endorsed by a Democratic Party or a Democratic Affliated organization. I seem to remember _every_ legitimate political organization denouncing the later.

[affrayer]

38. Me neither...

There have only been a few left wingers who resort to violence as a form of political will and by no means are they embraced.

[hughee99]

34. Free Mumia! Free Leonard Peltier! Free Tookie! Free OJ!

Okay, maybe not OJ. Usually, it seems some people try to convince themselves that people who agree with their politics aren't guilty, they are setup by someone else, that way, they don't feel like they're defending a murderer, they're defending an innocent man who is REALLY just in jail because of his politics. Either that, or they're victims of society, and society forced them into their crimes.

[One_Life_To_Give]

11. Too quick to assume alot of things

Mentally Ill people don't normally kill. But are people who walk into public places and start shooting therefor not ill?
It's much too early and far too little evidence to conclude if this kid is sane or not. A politically motivated killer or just a killer. Time will give us insight. But that doesn't fit in a 5sec soundbite or a Tweet.

[affrayer]

14. You're Kidding, Right?

It's much too early and far too little evidence to conclude if this kid is sane or not.

In what world do you live in that his actions could be considered anything but insane?

It's one thing to conclude that anyone who believes people like O'Reilly or Limbaugh are insane, it's another to consider mass murderers of innocent people insane.

The only question I have is who convinced this moron it was a "good" idea to wade into a crowd and empty his pistol and reload! The fact he was willing to do this pretty much establishes his loonytoon bonafides...

[One_Life_To_Give]

15. Legal Definition

Legally I don't know. Not my area of expertise. Likewise there is scant evidence about source of his views. Alot of speculation but little evidence.

[affrayer]

39. We're Not A Court Of Law...

However, the evidence about his misbegotten views is in his web postings.

[cling2reality]

13. Maybe it's because

people without some form of mental illness don't open fire on crowds and kill a 9 year old girl.

By any layman's diagnosis, that person would be mentally ill.

[CanSocDem]

17. Not exactly.

Soldiers, considered by many to be perfectly sane, are often required to "open fire on crowds". In the Excited States of America, even local police forces are given that responsibility.

One might suspect that the entire culture has "...some form of mental illness."

.

[HereSince1628]

18. Yes, those same laymen who perpetuate the stigmatization of the mentally ill?

I do not believe that a violent acts requires mental illness, I would suggest the British opening fire on a crowd at the Boston Massacre was not an act of mental illness. Money, ideology, and mental illness have all been determined to be behind different mass killings.

The point in this thread is not whether a violent act was perpetrated by a person with a mental illness. It might have been.

The point is that the public has a wrong impression of just how dangerous the mentally ill are. The study discussed in the article presented in the OP attempts to say just that.

That wrong impression of the mentally ill by the 'laity' isn't applied with care to specific cases of violence, it's broad brushed over all the mentally ill. It is what makes the public so afraid of the words "mental illness." It's what causes stigmatization of the mentally ill. It is that broad brushed stigma of mental illness that cause the mentally ill to fail to get jobs, to lose jobs, and to be denied promotions. Fear of that social punishment for being mentally ill to be bullied on playgrounds and sent into the isolation of their own minds which only makes environmentally influenced developmental disorders of the mind worse. It keeps people in denial about their own mental illness and the illnesses of their family and close associates--and keeps them away from getting help.

[jbnow]

23. Mentally ill people are far likelier to be the victim of violence than they are

to commit violence.

But the article talks about people saying he was mentally ill as though that answers everything. I haven't heard that, I haven't seen those shows. But it is right to say that mental illness would not be an answer to why this happened. It might be an answer to how he developed this paranoia around government and the hatred of the Congresswoman.
I worked with the mentally ill years ago and for those with paranoia and delusions they usually centered around government and/or religion. In the last couple of years with all the open hate speech and smears and lies I've actually thought of them. Thought of how hard it would have been if that had been so prevalent back then, how easily it could focus the anger/unrest/paranoia if they sat home listening to talk radio...

Don't know that was the case for this guy of course. And of course it wasn't the act that made people say he was mentally ill, it was reports of his behavior.

This article talked about a study... there are studies pretty specific to violent offenders. Dr Dorothy Otnow Lewis (and friends) tested those on Texas death row who were teens at the time of their crime. All tested (neurological testing) showed signs of pre/frontal cortical dysfunction. There were many other findings too. A majority did have diagnosable mental illness and almost all came from family violence, had a history of head injury and whatever.

I agree with you that there is prejudice... but I also find so many people have some empathy because of someone they know with a mental illness.
There is definitely prejudice in medical treatment too, as if mental illness was something so different from any other chronic illness. We don't make people with MS pay for their treatment the percentage the mentally ill would and the brain of the schizophrenic shows changes at least as clear as someone with MS.

There was a larger study of adult murderers before that. It wasn't 100% there but a very large majority had clear brain abnormalities including brain atrophy...

Well there were many things. Now not all brain injured people are violent either but I am guessing that relates to drunks being likelier to commit crimes...it's effect on the brain and probably all the more so if there is some already existing brain dysfunction that doesn't usually show up. Drunk driving tests are the same tests you'd get at a visit to a neurologist because alcohol affects brain functioning.

[cling2reality]

27. Would it be helpful if

I differentiated my comments a little.

I used to work full time with MR/DD clients, many of whom had forms of mental illness. I am sensitive to your position.

You are right that referring to this shooter as mentally ill stigmatizes those with mental illness and may cause someone who needs treatment not to seek it.

It was not my intention to disparage mentally illness or insinuate that mental illness causes people to be violent.

Maybe our urge to be politically correct causes us to not to use terms such as "fucking crazy" even in situations like this where it is appropriate.

We have all known people like that. Jared is not mentally ill, he is "fucking crazy". People who shoot innocent 9 year olds are not mentally ill, they are crazy.

[HereSince1628]

31. For me it's not about being PC it's about defining us vs THEM out of ignorance

Loughner could be severely mentally ill, with one or more classifiable morbidities. If that turns out to be true I don't have a problem with that.

What I have a problem with is reckless language, not PC language, the words crazy and nuts don't bother me when applied to specific circumstances where they apply with meaning.

But this is a time of social crisis. And in times of crisis social groups typically unite and construct common defense. It is precisely during these times that US vs THEM is defined. When groups, including groups like DU, do this defining we teach what is to be feared and shunned. And the distinction of who is US and who is THEM lasts long after the social crisis has passed. That's the basis of social stigmatization.

As a group, the mentally ill are highly and wrongfully stigmatized regarding their propensity to violence and their level of intelligence.

As we sit and speculate about the lack of Loughner's mental wellness and how fucking crazy he is, we should probably also dedicate a bit of speculation about how society (you, me, and the rest of US) contribute to that stigmatizing environment. Stigma is an obstacle to mental health treatment; lack of treatment for the severely mentally ill is certainly dangerous.

[roakes10190]

22. He's just crazy.

I can remember when anytime someone disagreed with a person, that somebody was simply "crazy." No. People are crazy in a particular way, not just generically "crazy." Let's look a little deeper for people's problems or actions than simply calling them "crazy."

[HereSince1628]

26. Very true

[AspenRose]

24. It certainly contributes to the stigma of mental illness, that's for sure

[bobbolink]

35. Exactly. It tars everyone with that label. Yet, the words used on DU do the same thing, and it

doesn't seem to matter to "progressives".

We are just as culpable.

Have you written in or called in to Thom Hartmann to complain about HIS part in doing this?

[kentuck]

25. There is a difference between Ted Bundy and Jared Loughner?

Is one more evil than the other? Is one more sick than the other?

[HereSince1628]

28. The point of the OP is not whether or not Loughner is mentally ill

Or whether he was more ill than Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer or John Wayne Gacey or John Allen Muhammad, or anyone else.

The point is that as a society we quickly jump to blame 'mental illness' and that is because the public has the mistaken perception that the mentally ill are more violent than the rest of us.

[kentuck]

29. My point was:

That there is violence caused by pure evil and there is violence cause because of mental illness. I don't think they are the same. Loughner is mentally ill. It's difficult to deny that fact. That doesn't mean everyone is jumping to blame mental illness for all the violence in our society.

[HereSince1628]

32. The problem is in things like the dichotomy you propose

Violence is caused by evil or mental illness. Not only is that far to narrow a list of causes of violence, it perpetuates an untruth. Mental illness and violence are not nearly so strongly linked. Violence and drug intoxication has a much higher association than even violence and severe mental illness.

On introspection I am confident that you would be able to generate more motivations/causes of violence than evil and mental illness.

I'm not arguing Loughner is not mentally ill.

This OP is not about Loughner, it's about US.

During times of crisis social groups unite and construct common defenses. It is precisely during these times that US vs THEM gets defined. When groups do this defining we teach and endorse what this group will fear and shun.

The distinction of who is US and who is THEM and the associated shunning lasts long after the social crisis has passed. That's the basis of social stigmatization of the mentally ill in our country.

The mentally ill are highly and wrongfully stigmatized regarding their propensity to violence and their level of intelligence. That's the point of the OP.

As we all sit and speculate about the lack of Loughner's mental wellness and just how ill he is, we should probably also dedicate a bit of speculation about how society (you, me, and the rest of US) contribute to that stigmatizing of mental illness. Because stigma is an obstacle to mental health treatment and discouraging treatment for the severely mentally ill is certainly a dangerous course.

[old mark]

30. I disagree. I stated that I believed theshooter was mentally ill because of

some of the behaviors he manifested and various other things about his life that I read in news reports.
I KNOW that the great majority of persons with mental illness are NOT violent or dangerous to others, and I certainly do not excuse his killing these people because I think he might be ill. I have worked with persons convicted of murder who were adjudicated mentally ill. They are being institutionalized for life in forensic treatment facilities where they receive at least medication and some therapy, but they will NEVER be allowed in society again and they are monitored continuously.
I think that may be appropriate for the shooter in this case, but that is just my opinion at this time. I am sure things will develop as more about him will be revealed...
mark

[HereSince1628]

33. Mark, this isn't about whether or not Loughner is mentally ill

I've read what's on the web and he has demonstrated behaviors that are symptoms of several severe mental illnesses. It isn't about whether he should be executed, or imprisoned without parole.

What this OP is about is simply this: During times like this society reinforces social stigmas.

The public has incorrect notions of how violent and how intelligent the mentally ill are.

Those incorrect notions feed stigmatization of the mentally ill.

Stigmatization is a barrier to treatment for the mentally ill and their families.

Stigmatization of the mentally ill isn't a generally hot topic on DU, but based on postings all over the internet, it seems that most people wish that Loughner had received treatment.


.

[old mark]

40. I certainly agree with that, and I did not mean to suggest otherwise...nt

[cynatnite]

36. I don't think we use it enough...

More recently, the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJs) reported that more than half of all prison and jail inmates have mental health problems (see page 6). Tom Hamilton, Ph.D., NAMI's liaison to APA's Committee on Jails and Prisons, said that the report was flawed, however, because it did not address the number of inmates suffering from severe and persistent mental illness.

http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/content/41/20/1.1.full

http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/content/41/20/6.1

Too many people think that using mental illness as a reason for committing a crime is a bullshit excuse. This is why prisons are now the new state mental hospitals.

[Cetacea]

41. It doesn't address how many were violent.

Or how many developed a form of mental illness as a result of being in prison.

[HereSince1628]

42. Yes, a curiosity of how our society deals with deviants

of all types.

Mostly we want them removed a safe distance from us.