Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

A Review of the "Mental Illness" Definition Might Prevent Crime

samzenpus posted about 8 months ago | from the getting-it-right dept.

Medicine 260

An anonymous reader writes "Following a BBC report showing abnormal variation in the number of people taken into police custody with mental health problems, concerns have been raised about the legal definition of "mental illness". Prof. Steve Fuller argues that a much sharper legal distinction is required to ensure criminals with mental disorders are not released without appropriate treatment. Fuller distinguishes between two cases: a 'client', who pays a therapist and enjoys a liberal, level-playing field in face-to-face interactions, and a 'patient' who is being treated by a doctor for a particular disorder. If the former relationship cannot be established due to person's mental state, then the latter one should be enforced. Thus, Fuller calls for 'a return to institutions analogous to the asylums of the early 19th century.'"

cancel ×

260 comments

Does Slashdot (2)

CheezburgerBrown . (3417019) | about 8 months ago | (#45569139)

have an audience for this?

Re:Does Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45569163)

Yes, rebels without a clue that should be put away.

Re:Does Slashdot (5, Insightful)

CheezburgerBrown . (3417019) | about 8 months ago | (#45569177)

Until it is you being put away, Mr. Coward.

Re:Does Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45569339)

Oh please! Every rule is okay until it is applied to us... Don't bullshit a bullshitter

Re:Does Slashdot (0)

CheezburgerBrown . (3417019) | about 8 months ago | (#45569639)

You sound like just the type of sociopath this article is aimed at!

Re:Does Slashdot (2, Informative)

khallow (566160) | about 8 months ago | (#45569181)

I'm kinda bored and it's a slow news day. Let's do "jail the crazies".

Plus there was that Canadian citizen who was blocked from air travel through a US airport (wasn't even stopping in the US) just because Canadian law enforcement had passed on to US Customs and Border Protection information about an mental illness related interaction she had with the Canadian police.

There's some deep issues here.

Need more mental health centers not prisons (4, Insightful)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 8 months ago | (#45569149)

Need more mental health centers not prisons with 23/7 lock down

Re:Need more mental health centers not prisons (5, Insightful)

lgw (121541) | about 8 months ago | (#45569183)

Well, they easily serve the same purpose. How long until "disagreeing with the politics of the ruling party" becomes a mental illness? No, no, we're not locking up millions in prison camps, that would be fascism, we're just confining them in mental health institutions, it's really for their own good!

Re:Need more mental health centers not prisons (5, Insightful)

squiggleslash (241428) | about 8 months ago | (#45569389)

How long until "disagreeing with the politics of the ruling party" becomes a mental illness?

Probably in the same timeframe as "disagreeing with the politics of the ruling party" becoming a crime.

Seriously, this is not a particular reason to object to "mental illness" definitions, any more than putting criminals in prison is a reason to object to laws. Any power can be abused. But some abusable powers are necessary. The question is whether you're willing, as an honest citizen, to be vigilant.

People's Cube response (2)

Mr. Firewall (578517) | about 8 months ago | (#45569489)

Ah, yes, Comrade! Those of us true to the Collective have always known that the Hooligans and Reactionaries had something wrong in their heads! Probably from a vodka deficiency or something.

I, for one, welcome this! It's time we lock away all the dissidents until they learn to love Big Brother -- er, I mean, Dear Leader.

Re:Need more mental health centers not prisons (3, Interesting)

Escogido (884359) | about 8 months ago | (#45569533)

How long until "disagreeing with the politics of the ruling party" becomes a mental illness?

Probably in the same timeframe as "disagreeing with the politics of the ruling party" becoming a crime.

There is a good example - Russia has a long history of "diagnosing" dissenters with "mild schizophrenia" and similar mental conditions and "sentencing" them to be treated in special prison-like institutions. It started back in tsarist days in 19th century and lasted up until at least the late Soviet period, when a bunch of dissidents were forcefully "treated" from this. (There are also some reports it's been going on in the 90s but lately there have been no high profile cases.)

Parallels can be drawn..

Re:Need more mental health centers not prisons (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about 8 months ago | (#45569669)

We stopped being vigilant a long time ago. We stopped being honest citizens a long time ago. Many will sing the last line of our national anthem without a hint of irony, despite the fact that we imprison more people than any country in the world.

The crimes we need to be afraid of are not the crimes committed by people behind bars. They are the crimes committed by men in suits, in government or corporate board rooms. Most people in prison are victims, either of unjust laws, or an economy deliberately engineered to work against the common man. We need to focus on the real problem. It's not the schizophrenics on the street corner, it's the sociopaths in DC and NYC.

Re:Need more mental health centers not prisons (2, Insightful)

Derec01 (1668942) | about 8 months ago | (#45569709)

No, because "protecting people" from their mental illness is a more sanitized, less outrageous aim, at least on the surface. If you're looking to stigmatize opposing points of view with a slow boil, it's an intermediate point. Just long enough to collect statistics "proving" that such people are often criminal, and regrettably must be incarcerated in some cases.

Disclaimer: I don't believe in some large conspiracy attempting to do this. I am afraid that certain segments really believe this, though, and would do it if they could, which terrifies me. The agreeable laughter I hear in my liberal area when a scientific study claims conservatives brains are different can be unsettling at times.

Re:Need more mental health centers not prisons (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45569883)

The problem is really your trust that scientists know wtf they are doing, they usually don't. Most commonly the failure lies in incompetence in understanding statistics and randomness. For example see this about fmri results from a dead salmon using commonly accepted methods.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/09/fmrisalmon/

Re:Need more mental health centers not prisons (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45569465)

what do you think mandated health care is really about?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppositional_defiant_disorder

Re:Need more mental health centers not prisons (1)

qbast (1265706) | about 8 months ago | (#45570005)

Let me make a wild guess here: it is about healthcare. Don't worry, men with straightjackets are not coming for you even if you are paranoid loon.

Re:Need more mental health centers not prisons (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45569503)

The Obama administration is already using the IRS to attack political enemies. It's not a far cry from "detaining" them like they do with Muslims.

Re:Need more mental health centers not prisons (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45569911)

The Obama administration is already using the IRS to attack political enemies. It's not a far cry from "detaining" them like they do with Muslims.

source?

Re:Need more mental health centers not prisons (2)

AvitarX (172628) | about 8 months ago | (#45570033)

Who was the last president that didn't do that?

Re:Need more mental health centers not prisons (5, Insightful)

gtall (79522) | about 8 months ago | (#45569739)

You do realize that until the 60's, the U.S. had a fair number of asylums. Then it was determined that the mentally ill had rights and they were promptly discharged with many finding the street life fit them better than anything else. It turned out the mentally ill had a right to be homeless.

What is needed is a more sane approach to mental illness, especially now with so many vets suffering from PTSD. The discrimination should stop, but for that to stop people would need to be educated about mental illness....well, I guess the mentally ill are screwed then.

The prisons are filled with people that simply run into the law enforcement system before they run into a mental health system. The law enforcement system cannot force one onto meds, so the poor souls get warehoused in the prisons. When they are let out, their neuroses are that much worse because mental illness frequently does not get better on its own. Left untreated, it gets worse. By that time, the mentally ill think of prison as a refuge, so they commit another crime to back.

Re:Need more mental health centers not prisons (2, Insightful)

turgid (580780) | about 8 months ago | (#45569947)

Then it was determined that the mentally ill had rights and they were promptly discharged with many finding the street life fit them better than anything else. It turned out the mentally ill had a right to be homeless.

The USA operates on a policy of Social Darwinism because anything else would be pinko-commie.

If you're ill and or poor in the USA, the sacred Market will remove you from the human race if you are not sufficiently fit.

Re:Need more mental health centers not prisons (1)

Chalnoth (1334923) | about 8 months ago | (#45569835)

The point is that we should be focusing on treatment, not punishment. There's also the extremely problematic aspect that people with mental illnesses may be less-able to defend themselves in court.

My primary concern with the way this was stated, however, is that many poorer people won't have access to mental health treatment, so they may be treated in the court system as if they have no mental illness. That is a serious problem. Honestly, I think we should just decide that medical treatment (whether mental or physical) is a human right that everybody deserves to have access to.

Re:Need more mental health centers not prisons (3, Interesting)

Mashiki (184564) | about 8 months ago | (#45569871)

Well, they easily serve the same purpose. How long until "disagreeing with the politics of the ruling party" becomes a mental illness?

Considering during the 5ish years there's been a slew of attacks on people who "don't fit their world view" including pseudoscience like papers? It's already happening, funny thing about that most of them are attacks on conservatives or the tea party. Though there have been a few on liberals as well, all in all? It's exactly what every dictatorship does, you don't have to search far to find it.

Re:Need more mental health centers not prisons (1)

umafuckit (2980809) | about 8 months ago | (#45570009)

No, no, we're not locking up millions in prison camps, that would be fascism

That would be any oppressive totalitarian regime. The ideology is just the window-dressing necessary for getting into power.

Re:Need more mental health centers not prisons (1)

BringsApples (3418089) | about 8 months ago | (#45570065)

That'd be fine with me. Fuck man, we're all trying to live a nice life whereby we can figure out what all this life stuff is about anyway, right? And so much money we currently have to gain in order to just pay simple bills, we get stuck working the whole time we're alive, wasting our lives away, simply trying to keep from being homeless.

If the government is willing to pony up the dollars to support the entire "crazy population" (and again, crazy because they don't agree with politicians) then I'll be the first in line to go to this holiday-retreat, er, I mean jail. All those rich people out there, working construction, farming, sewers-work, cleaning bathrooms, etc... all so the crazies stay in, what they'd call, "jail".

Re:Need more mental health centers not prisons (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45569199)

Some mental health centers can be compared to prisons, with similar lock downs. Once admitted to a mental health facitlity, it can be harder to get out of than prison. And, depending on your location and health insurance coverage, they can be very easy to get stuck in.

Re:Need more mental health centers not prisons (5, Insightful)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about 8 months ago | (#45569207)

The trouble with mental health is that there isn't any kind of magic bullet treatment like there can be with just about any other disease.

Usually the best treatments come from medication, and if the person stops taking their medication (this is very often the case, they think they don't need it anymore, especially due to the stigma attached to it which often makes them WANT to stop taking it) then they go back to how they were before, only this time going back on the medication doesn't solve the problem and the psychologist has to keep trying different medications until one works, assuming they can ever find one.

Or they can also come from therapy (depends on the exact condition) and if you keep them in these places until they are "treated", it may as well be a prison sentence. I've seen these places, they very much remind me of a prison: The windows are barred, the doors are all locked and only visitors and/or staff are allowed through them, and visitors can't bring plastic or metal inside. The patients are forced to sit around doing nothing all day long, maybe get to play backgammon with some derp who was born without a personality, or if they're lucky he'll be a nut and somewhat entertaining to talk to.

Re:Need more mental health centers not prisons (3, Insightful)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about 8 months ago | (#45569319)

"The trouble with mental health is that there isn't any kind of magic bullet treatment like there can be with just about any other disease."

There's almost never a magic bullet treatment, for any disease, mental or physical. The problem with mental illness is that it diminishes the sufferer's ability to make decisions for himself. That doesn't mesh well with a society of individuals.

Re:Need more mental health centers not prisons (5, Insightful)

TemperedAlchemist (2045966) | about 8 months ago | (#45569363)

It's exacerbated by a society that doesn't take it seriously.

No, really, no one takes the fact you have a mental illness seriously until you do something completely batshit crazy like shoot up a school. If I had a nickel for every time someone told me I didn't have a reason to feel depressed...

You are ignored, basically, until you commit a crime. THEN people care. Until then you're not ill, you're just a lazy loafer.

Re:Need more mental health centers not prisons (1)

sjames (1099) | about 8 months ago | (#45569963)

You are ignored, basically, until you commit a crime. THEN people care. Until then you're not ill, you're just a lazy loafer.

And after, you're a dangerous criminal who must be punished.

Re:Need more mental health centers not prisons (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45570037)

The most recent dude who shot up a school (Newtown) was diagnosed with autism-- same as a LOT of people, myself included. Most people would not think that I have "autism" per-say, but thats really not relevant: I was diagnosed with it, which if we're talking about being involuntarily committed to an institution is all that matters.

So just keep in mind that when you talk about locking up people to prevent these kind of shootings, you would be locking up a LOT of reasonably functional people.

Re:Need more mental health centers not prisons (1)

davydagger (2566757) | about 8 months ago | (#45569557)

and so does the treatment.

having someone declared mentally ill was a good way of getting rid of them back in the 19th century.

Re:Need more mental health centers not prisons (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 8 months ago | (#45569613)

But we are in general, much more successful in treatment of 'physical' conditions rather than 'mental' (See what I did there? I artificially made a distinction where there really isn't one.) With some of the new techniques and knowledge in neurobiology we are getting closer (although this has been said many times before).

The problem then becomes do you really want to go there? It is easy to imagine a period of time in the not to distant future when medical science understands cognition and emotion well enough to control it say, like we do with blood pressure. Take a pill, you're really better. No major nasty side effects. Clear efficacy. Perhaps even permanent cures.

I for one, am not sure I want to welcome those particular overlords.

Re:Need more mental health centers not prisons (5, Insightful)

pla (258480) | about 8 months ago | (#45569623)

There's almost never a magic bullet treatment, for any disease, mental or physical.

I have to disagree... If I get strep or pneumonia, they give me a z-pack and bam, it magically goes away. If I have a broken finger, they give me vicodin and bam, I magically don't care about the pain (though yes, the finger itself just takes time to heal). If I have insomnia, they give me ambien and bam, I can magically sleep again. When my knees or hips eventually wear out, they give me new ones and bam, I magically get to walk for another 20-30 years. And keep in mind that many of our "magic bullets" work on a larger scale and longer term scale - Vaccination, water sterilization, sewage treatment, annual physicals, etc.

Even for the things that still tend to kill us, like cancer and heart disease, we have a lot of magic bullets that let us live far, far longer than we would have a century ago. Case in point, we wouldn't have various religiots arguing over their "right" to murder (as in the case from last week) their 10YO daughter by refusing treatment for a 95% survivable form of leukemia. She would simply have died, no moral issues involved.

But for mental diseases, it gets a lot messier. There, I would have to at least partially agree with you. We have plenty of ammo, but precious few we would dare call "magically" effective. Perhaps more like "napalm", where they might get the job done, but with so much collateral damage that you have people going off their meds because the cure sucks almost as much as the symptoms (to give my metaphors a good stir there).

Perhaps more to the point of TFA, I would have to agree with its author. We need to get over this societal PC BS that every sociopath and drooler can, with the right care, grow up and lead a productive life as a rocket surgeon. Some people will never manage more than wiping their own ass, and some people will never grasp why they can't "earn" their living pointing a gun at convenience store clerks. Simple as that. Best for us, and best for them, to keep them off the streets until such time as we can cure "criminal" with a magic bullet - Preferably starting the process before they take a real bullet from an armed victim or a cop or a partner crossed.

Re:Need more mental health centers not prisons (2)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about 8 months ago | (#45569431)

Wow I'm modded troll for talking frankly about mental health. I guess that kind of goes to show you just how seriously we take it at least. Even talking about it lands you scorn.

I have experience with it because two of my relatives have been through it (I have literally more than 50 first cousins btw, or at least that's where I stopped counting, and I don't need to talk about probabilities) and it's pretty damn stupid how the system works, at least in the states anyways.

Re:Need more mental health centers not prisons (3, Insightful)

davydagger (2566757) | about 8 months ago | (#45569571)

this isn't about mental health.

This is about false diagnosis used as a shadow justice system for malcontents, and bringing back torture and abuse.

we're not talking about people who actually need help. we are talking about people who are about to be rammed through the system because the system wants them gone, without too much of a fuss if they were ordinary criminals

Re:Need more mental health centers not prisons (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 8 months ago | (#45569631)

There is this psychiatric issue called transference [wikipedia.org] . (In this case the third definition) that may be operative here. I sometimes wonder exactly what kind of childhood the majority of Slashdot moderators had. Kinda scary.

Re:Need more mental health centers not prisons (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45569209)

Right. Just put half of the population either into mental health centers or in prisons.

That will save you from thinking about why you've got so many criminals and people who are nuts.

Re:Need more mental health centers not prisons (3, Funny)

khallow (566160) | about 8 months ago | (#45569287)

Gotta solve the unemployment problem somehow.

Re:Need more mental health centers not prisons (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45569213)

But those don't bring in money.
If we made it so we actively try to solve problems and ensure good reintegration in society, we gonna have to start closing prisons like in Sweden.
What are you, some bloody communistic anarchistic terrorist? Why do you hate your country?

Re:Need more mental health centers not prisons (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45569313)

The US had a lot of mental wards in the past but the ACLU sued them out of existence in the 60s and 70s. The mental health got a big boost back the in 50s with the discovery of tranquilizer so the ACLU felt that people could be released to home or local care with the use of tranquilizers. So the lawsuits began with getting them out and keeping them out. The mental health wards started to close in the late 70s and early 80s since there was no more patients. So now the law in the US means you can not be committed until you are a danger to society, ie commit a crime. This is why you end up with people with mental illness in jails instead of hospitals. Take the example of Jared Lee Loughner who shot and killed people in Arizona. He had mental problems but the school couldn't do anything to commit him without more problems arising. His parents couldn't commit him without his consent. When did he get committed? When he killed people. People want to make sure people are not committed for the wrong reason and this is the result of going the other end of the spectrum. A balance in the middle is needed but the ACLU is not going to back down.

Re:Need more mental health centers not prisons (3, Insightful)

davydagger (2566757) | about 8 months ago | (#45569543)

I think you misunderstand.

mental health centers ARE prisons.

They are calling for a return of the bad old days of 19th century asylums.

I'm glad I'm a Beta (0)

pigiron (104729) | about 8 months ago | (#45569789)

"Alpha children wear grey. They work much harder than we do, because they're so frightfully clever. I'm really awfully glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard. And then we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas. Gammas are stupid. They all wear green, and Delta children wear khaki. Oh no, I don't want to play with Delta children. And Epsilons are still worse. They're too stupid to be able "

The problem is... (5, Insightful)

TWX (665546) | about 8 months ago | (#45569171)

...who decides. We've all exhibited behavior at one time or another that could be interpreted as antisocial, and with our paycheck-to-paycheck lifestyle and less institutional family connections, it's very possible that someone involuntarily committed may find literally all of their worldly possessions gone when they come out. Such involuntary confinement could be used when someone in authority finds something otherwise noncriminal to be abhorrent. There are numerous examples of countercultures throughout our fairly recent history that were investigated by the authorities, and it was bad enough without those people having to particularly worry about involuntary confinement attributed to supposed mental illness.

Who decides, what they can compel, and how that person's life is managed while they're institutionalized are all very, very important factors in if it's even possible to use involuntary medical-based confinement or not.

And that doesn't even begin to address costs. While I don't care for it, it's possible for prisons to get some return on their costs by using prison labor to do things that don't really pay the prisoners but do pay the prison. If someone's committed for what's supposed to be a mental illness problem, it's doubtful that using that person for profit for the institution would really be possible.

Re:The problem is... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45569311)

Yes. Too complicated. Let's just abrogated the rights of mentally healthy, law-abiding citizens by restricting their liberties and choices so we don't have to make difficulty choices about such complicated issues.

Imprisoning people is what this is all about (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45569449)

Putting people in prison is exactly the point of this push to "reform mental health laws" that has been occurring lately in the USA and UK. Just watch what's happening, and you can see it plain as day. First they demonize the Tea Party and anyone else who shares their ideas of small and limited by government by calling them "anarchists" and "extremists" and "crazies" and every other word in the book, to demonize anyone who believes in the Constitution and freedom. Then they try to pass gun control laws to take our guns away, and find themselves being stopped cold by stiff resistance. So they slip in through the back door: "No no no, we're not going to take your guns away, that's silly...but we should really lock up all these CRAZIES and stop them from getting guns! Yeah, that's it! How can you oppose such a reasonable thing?" And even the gun owners who vigorously oppose gun control nod their heads in approval, with no clue of the trap they are stepping into. "Yeah, take the guns away from the crazies, that's A-OK! Get those crazies off the streets!" Meanwhile you see the DSM 5 manual coming out where things have been redefined so vaguely that damn near anyone can be accused of a mental illness. The steps are being put in place to label all freedom fighters and libertarians as "mentally ill" so we can be disarmed and locked away, while the useful idiots of society cheer it on.

Re:Imprisoning people is what this is all about (1)

TWX (665546) | about 8 months ago | (#45569667)

I think that's enough Internet for today... [gifrific.com]

Seriously... you need to turn off the TV, turn off the radio, and the Internet for awhile. Go camping or something, just get away from the self-force-feeding of so much negativity.

You are one stupid fucker (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45570029)

I don't own a TV, or a radio. The only thing I do on the internet is read, read, read, from thousands of different news and other information sources. You know, to educate myself on what's actually happening in the world. That's why I understand the world a lot better than you do, idiot.

Seriously, is that all your life is good for? Posting snarky comments on slashdot ridiculing things which you are too fucking stupid to put 2+2 together and understand? You are worthless. Die in a fire.

Re:The problem is... (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 8 months ago | (#45569685)

Generally, society gives a free pass to antisocial / psychopathic behavior until and unless it passes some artificial boundary. That boundary is flexible and varies from place to place and time to time. In our present culture, pyschopathic tendencies are in fact generously rewarded in many instances (politics, business) and it actually takes a serious transgression (axe murderer) to get nailed.

Of course, the big problem here is that personality disorders and actual mental illnesses exist along a complex, non linear, unstable gradation. Sure, you've been 'antisocial' or even worse at times. Sure, you have been depressed, perhaps even temporarily psychotic. But most of the time, I will assume, that you're behaviors (and thoughts) hang out within two standard deviations of the population. There are clearly people at then ends of the curve - they can be pretty darn scary. There are even more people (assuming a normal distribution which seems to be applicable here) who push at the boundaries of 'normal'. It's these folks that you see in jail or just not doing well in society.

It's also these folks that modern psychiatric care attempts to treat but really doesn't have a great track record for doing so. Some of these people would do better in an institutional setting but that is a complex, morally hazardous and tremendously expensive method that has a track record for being systematically abused.

Take your pill and be happy, comrade. It really is better that way.

Once a criminal, "ill" for life (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45569215)

It is my understanding that you get punished once for being a criminal. With a so called diagnosis associated with you for whatever reason, sensible or not, that type of personal information probably be used against you for life.

Re:Once a felon, "ill" for life (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45569971)

OTOH, it's hard to care about the erosion of rights of a released felon, since felons don't have the same rights as normal individuals.

The default punishment for a felony used to be a swift death the following sunrise. At some point we stopped executing all felons, but we still take away most of their legal rights even after they're released from prison (e.g. they can't vote, can't hold office, can't own a firearm, etc).

<propsal type="modest">If you'd rather go back to the old system, I'm sure it would be cheaper. Oh, and there would be a lot fewer repeat felons, so it would be a win-win for society!? D: </proposal>

Sustainability (0)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 8 months ago | (#45569225)

Careful. The legal definition of insanity is in place to prevent people from exploiting the definition to get away with crimes.

The definition is largely "do you know that what you did was wrong."... So if a talking banana told you to do it, it doesn't really matter. You knew it was wrong and chose to do it anyway. You should have ignored the talking banana. That is the position of the law.

We can offer better treatment for people with mental instability without redefining insanity legally. If we redefine it, then clever criminals will use it to get light sentences and make an even larger mockery of our legal system.

Do not be that stupid. See this one coming. Show enough intelligence to anticipate the next move.

It can cut both ways. (1)

lahvak (69490) | about 8 months ago | (#45569359)

On one hand, as you say, criminals could exploit a wider definition of insanity to get a lighter sentence, on the other hand, authorities can use it to incarcerate troublemakers without having to take them to a court, because they obviously need treatment for their "sluggish schizofrenia".

Re:Sustainability (1)

just_a_monkey (1004343) | about 8 months ago | (#45569513)

Careful. The legal definition of insanity is in place to prevent people from exploiting the definition to get away with crimes.

The definition is largely "do you know that what you did was wrong."...

"Well, not wrong. Illegal, sure, but not wrong in any moral sense."

Now what?

Re:Sustainability (1)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 8 months ago | (#45569671)

Do you honestly think that an effective counter argument? Really?

In the context of a court, right and wrong is legal and illegal.

So they are a distinction without meaning in this instance.

Your move.

Re:Sustainability (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45569759)

Only about 1% of all trials involve somebody that's trying to plead insanity. And it rarely works.

I'm not sure where this perception comes from that it's a real problem, the mentally ill that would succeed in pleading out are then sent to a mental institution for what's likely to be a much longer period of time in most cases. And even when it's not, it's not something they're likely to have done had they been provided with adequate care to begin with. People don't just wake up one day and murder somebody because they got mentally ill over night. There's generally a long pattern of behavior that suggests that they need help. Giving it to them earlier on, would minimize the consequences for everybody.

What makes a mockery of our justice system is this obsession with the possibility that somebody might get away with something. Of course somebody is going to get away with something, but the alternative is to do away with the legal system and just have people thrown i prison without a trial.

Re:Sustainability (1)

Hatta (162192) | about 8 months ago | (#45569817)

The definition is largely "do you know that what you did was wrong."

A very large number of people in prison are there for things that every thinking person knows are not wrong.

Re:Sustainability (1)

J'raxis (248192) | about 8 months ago | (#45569983)

Just like everything else involving the State, they have their own legal redefinition of the words "right" and "wrong", in order to make sure things like morality or logic don't get in the way of convicting people. M'Naghten rules [wikipedia.org] .

Foundation question (5, Interesting)

Okian Warrior (537106) | about 8 months ago | (#45569235)

Apropos of nothing, let me ask a question.

Can people be cured of mental health problems?

I recall a study comparing the rates of people getting off drugs while on psychotherapy with those getting off drugs on their own.

I also recall a study where completely sane people were checked into a mental institution (under a false name, as a test case) with instructions to pretend symptoms for awhile, but then pretend to be completely cured. Their status was never set to "cured", rather it was "condition, under remission".

So have there been any studies showing that mental health treatment is effective, or is psychotherapy more akin to lie detectors and phrenology?

(A related question, is there good sensitivity between the various mental health diagnoses with different treatments? Meaning, if the condition A treatment is different from condition B, is there a sharp, easily-recognized distinction between the symptoms for A and B?)

Re:Foundation question (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45569385)

FYI: Starting off a post with "apropos of nothing" is a clue to readers that you're talking out of your ass.

Re:Foundation question (2)

climb_no_fear (572210) | about 8 months ago | (#45569683)

Maybe he is ass talking (I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine how).

However, there was such an experiment done in the 1970's and the result was much as he described: Rosenhan Experiment [wikipedia.org]

Re:Foundation question (5, Insightful)

swillden (191260) | about 8 months ago | (#45569457)

I, unfortunately, have had far too much exposure to the mental health system, due to mental illness in my immediate family. I'll give you my perspective on your questions, based primarily on my anecdotal experience, plus some research-based discussions with practitioners.

I think the answer is a qualified yes, people can be made better, though "cured" may be too strong.

Mental health treatment is, I think, much where medicine was shortly after the discovery of the germ theory of disease. It's beginning to become a capable, scientific endeavor, and it is very useful within the areas that it works, but there's lots we don't understand, about what goes wrong, about why it goes wrong, about what will and won't work to fix it, and even about why the stuff that does work, works.

My daughter's condition is a good example. She has Borderline Personality Disorder (which is a really terrible, inaccurate name, and everyone knows it, but that's the label that got stuck on it). There is no cure but time; most BPD sufferers eventually achieve fairly normal functioning by their mid 30s. There are some treatments that help, though. Sometimes. The best one is a particular form of psychotherapy called Dialectical Behavioral Therapy, which is at root mindfulness training. It's effectiveness is definitely better than nothing, but whether or not it will help a person become a functional member of society is very hit or miss. My daughter's doing okay, but has real challenges.

My sister's son, on the other hand, has Bipolar Disorder. There are great meds that almost completely fix the problem for a large percentage of sufferers, including him. In addition, it appears that specific dietary restrictions can do just as much as the meds. I understand that schizophrenia is eminently treatable with medication, though the severe side effects often discourage its use.

I have ADD, and so do all three of my sons. There are very effective medications for it, but there are also learned habits that can be used to work around it. My older sons and I use the latter plus a little self-medication with caffeine. My youngest takes Concerta.

Depending on the disorder, sometime diagnoses are clear and incontrovertible, and proof of "cure" (or management) is equally incontrovertible. Sometimes it's really fuzzy. Sometimes treatment is effective and well-understood. Sometimes it isn't.

The answer, I think, is to be very clear about what we can and cannot do, and to do what we can. And, of course, to continue research into improving our ability to understand and treat.

Re:Foundation question (0)

davydagger (2566757) | about 8 months ago | (#45569587)

>Mental health treatment is, I think, much where medicine was shortly *before* the discovery of the germ theory of disease

fixed that for you

Re:Foundation question (1)

swillden (191260) | about 8 months ago | (#45569917)

>Mental health treatment is, I think, much where medicine was shortly *before* the discovery of the germ theory of disease fixed that for you

No, you broke it. I think we actually do understand some of the fundamental mechanisms. Not all of them, and not in great depth, but we're beyond the stage of mysticism and humors, and there is a scientific basis for much of what is done.

Re:Foundation question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45569945)

I do neuroscience research. Trust me, they have no idea what the drugs are actually doing in there.

Re:Foundation question (1)

swillden (191260) | about 8 months ago | (#45570021)

And for a long time we had no idea how penicillin worked. Not understanding the mechanism of the cure isn't the same as not having any idea what the problem is, or as scientific basis for knowing what works and what doesn't work.

Re:Foundation question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45569617)

Can people be cured of mental health problems?

Even if it could be, it would not be allowed for without varying degrees of insanity, there would be no government as their would be no demands for assorted protection rackets or reasons for such demands to exist. Not to mention it would kill off a huge cash cow for pharmaceuticals and their psychobabbling drug dealers.

Re:Foundation question (3, Informative)

Justarius (305126) | about 8 months ago | (#45569625)

There's a base assumption at play here that makes the addressing the issue at hand much more murkier than it should be.

Psychiatry sees all mental health problems as, in root, organic in nature. In other words, there is a chemical imbalance, a brain trauma, or a genetic component that creates the symptoms. These mental health issues can be seen as "cured" through medical regimes, but, many other illnesses, considered under remission, since a chemical imbalance caused by a genetic component cannot be "cured". The DSM (V is the latest incarnation) uses symptomatic observations as base criteria - not necessarily biological markers, but medical therapy is based on biomarkers (for example, a regulation in serotonin uptake). While this is a gross oversimplification of the matter, it paints a general picture of what happens with the organic position of mental illnesses. In a very simple word, psychiatry views mental illnesses as a nature problem.

Psychology, on the other hand, does not see all "mental illnesses" (as defined in the DSM) as organic in nature. As swillden mentioned, psychotherapy (of which there are many intervention methods) assist in managing the situation. Much of it takes root in mindfulness - not only in a social perspective, but also a reframing and re-internalization of current and past events. Others might take a family based approach, not only in dealing with the specific issues the primary client is dealing with, but also how their immediate social structure responds to their condition. CBT (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy) *might* go a step further and integrate neuroscience to determine if there is a biological component to their client's condition (but this tendency is still far and few between, considering the cost, the protocols required, and the length of time). Depending of the epistemological perspective of psychology, psychologists don't "cure", because the client isn't sick, they are maladjusted (through previous rationalizations or emotional internalizations of events and situations). Using a similar oversimplification, psychology sees many mental illnesses (note: not all) as a nurture problem (a learning/behavioral problem that has both an individual and social/cultural component).

There is a grey point in between these two, apparently competing points of view, which come up often in these discussions. What happens with schizophrenia? Or with a catatonic patient? A medical regime may assist in managing the symptoms, but without some measure of psychotherapy, the person will have a much harder time dealing with their inner situation. I doubt that something like psychoanalysis (or tools from psychodynamics) will work well, but perhaps a cognitive behavioral intervention might have a better success rate. Or even some of the tools from the Humanistic school of thought can help.

Re:Foundation question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45569829)

"Psychiatry sees all mental health problems as, in root, organic in nature."

you couldn't be more wrong. I and most of my peers feel that some 80% of mental health issues, especially in kids, are environmental. No, I don't mean they are eating lead paint. It's the parents most often.

  - 13 years in adult and child crisis mental health services.

Re:Foundation question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45569657)

I think I remember reading about this study. When the "patients" wrote in a journal, the therapists made a note of "subject exhibits writing behavior". The therapists were very hard-wired to view institutionalized people within their prescribed role.

Oh, Yeah? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45569239)

I think Prof. Fuller should be in therapy. If he disagrees, it must be because he's "not in the appropriate mental state to operate in such a relationship", in which case his need for treatment "may need to be legally enforced.”

Re:Oh, Yeah? (1)

khallow (566160) | about 8 months ago | (#45569329)

The irony here is that he was trying to rescue people from the clutches of psychiatry. Out of the pot and into the fire.

Who's hurting who? (2)

Kaenneth (82978) | about 8 months ago | (#45569249)

I've read that statistically, schizophrenics are more likely to be victims of violence, from people who misunderstand their behavior (stand your ground *cough*) than to commit violence...

So, who should be locked up?

(too early in the damn morning to try and look up a cite.)

Re:Who's hurting who? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45569811)

I'm a schizophrenic who has repeatedly been a victim of violence. However, as far as I know, it has nothing to do with people not understanding my behavior, and more to do with the situations I've gotten myself into, such as mental hospitals and group homes. It's been my observation that most of the people who work in those types of places want to help, but some see it as a means to exert power, sometimes violent, over others and get away with it.

Even doctors can't treat you against your will (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45569255)

And of course allowing a totalitarian state will prevent crime.

This is just mission creep from the state of affairs with sex offenders which I find just as scary.

If the people want to make certain crimes punishable by life in prison, and juries will find people guilty knowing this, then I can live with that.

This idea that people can go to prison, serve their sentences, and still be held captive possibly forever is incompatible with legitimate governance.

This raises a question they try to avoid (4, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | about 8 months ago | (#45569279)

Are we responsible for the crimes we commit? If we are mentally ill, then surely we're not responsible. And if we're not responsible, then surely we need to have another "protected class" of people defined to prevent harassment, discrimination and unjust punishment. What they are attempting to do is reduce and even remove freedoms and rights which are both natural and constitutionally guaranteed. I'm not going to say that mentally unstable people should have access to dangerous things such as cars, knives, heavy bludgeoning devices and especially not firearms. If someone is indeed a "danger to society" we need to be serious about it -- very serious and very consistent. To deny someone their rights such as the right to self defense while at the same time not affording them appropriate protections under the law to compensate creates an extremely unfair situation.

Re:This raises a question they try to avoid (1)

Reziac (43301) | about 8 months ago | (#45569585)

I've known people who were mentally ill, but completely aware of right vs wrong. Whether they'd DO wrong depended on how they saw it impacting themselves.

Re:This raises a question they try to avoid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45569777)

Some do and some don't, but the problem is that it's not just a matter of knowing the difference, it's being able to control oneself. But, the law only recognizes the former and not the latter. Which results in people going to prison for crimes that they may not have had any say in, rather than a psychiatric hospital where they might get treated and go on to live avproductive life.

Re:This raises a question they try to avoid (1)

erroneus (253617) | about 8 months ago | (#45569795)

Knowing if something is right or wrong at the right time is key and is truly the issue with impulse control disorders. Typically this arises in no small part due to prioritization of feelings versus facts. Rage is a feeling. Perceived danger is a fact. One of these situation may call for the use of a firearm while the other does not. So which sort of mental disorder is also a matter which warrants scrutiny.

What you describe is someone making a reasoned decision of some sort. And you know, by that definition, it may well be the primary reason most high-level, powerful people, should be denied the right to bear arms. After all, aren't most corporate leaders, government leaders and military leaders sociopathic? Gives you something to think about when these people are attempting to disarm the rest of the population doesn't it?

Prevent Crime - Sure! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45569285)

Sure, prevent crime. By labeling crime as something other than "crime". But, no matter what you want to call it, your shit still got stolen.

Massive potential for abuse? (1)

kheldan (1460303) | about 8 months ago | (#45569305)

Wouldn't this open the door to the government having people institutionalized simply because they're politically inconvenient? Say, someone is arrested for taking part in a political protest, are "diagnosed" as having some sort of vague mental disorder, refuses "counseling" to "cure" the condition, and is then compelled to "treatment" for it, effectively imprisoning them, medicating them, until they change their opinions? Isn't this the same shit that happens all the time in China to citizens merely demanding that the law be enforced? Do we really want to go there?

Re:Massive potential for abuse? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45569391)

Wouldn't this open the door to the government having people institutionalized simply because they're politically inconvenient? Say, someone is arrested for taking part in a political protest, are "diagnosed" as having some sort of vague mental disorder, refuses "counseling" to "cure" the condition, and is then compelled to "treatment" for it, effectively imprisoning them, medicating them, until they change their opinions? Isn't this the same shit that happens all the time in China to citizens merely demanding that the law be enforced? Do we really want to go there?

No, we really don't want to go there, but much like the leadership fucking up this country, we weren't given much of a choice in the decisions they make, just like this one.

What you have described here will happen. I promise you. The real question is will your democratically-flavored Obamacare medical plan cover your Republican or Tea Party ailments, or will there be a higher out-of-pocket expense for those not following the party line...

In other news (3, Informative)

echnaton192 (1118591) | about 8 months ago | (#45569315)

I do not think that having mental problems in Great Britain is a good idea: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2516270/Pregnant-woman-unborn-baby-girl-forcibly-removed-caesarean-social-workers-obtain-court-order-suffered-mental-breakdown.html [dailymail.co.uk]

They've sent her to the hospital, drugged her, cut her baby out of her and gave away the baby of this italian mother for adoption in the UK because even though she is on medication and made a full recovery she might one day have mental problems again. The baby will not even grow up in italy.

Just wow.

Re:In other news (1)

sandytaru (1158959) | about 8 months ago | (#45569495)

That is pretty "wow" but suffering a nervous breakdown and having bipolar disorder are not necessarily the same thing. I feel for her but I wonder if there is more to the story than what was reported. Did she try to commit suicide during her breakdown or otherwise injure herself or the fetus? Either way, a C-section without consent is a huge deal and I hope she sues and wins.

Re:In other news (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45569805)

I fucking don't. The sponging dago bitch goes to the UK for free medical treatment and then gripes about it?

Prevent crimes? What about justice? (3, Insightful)

Kohath (38547) | about 8 months ago | (#45569341)

"Preventing" crimes is not justice. Locking up innocents to "prevent" them from committing crimes is essentially the opposite of justice.

Also, note what they're preventing: "crimes". Not violence or any action that harms anyone. "Crimes" encompasses all manner of disobedience toward authority, regardless of whether that authority is legitimate. Example: Man faces felony charge over trimming shrubs [utsandiego.com] . Not a crime: DEA locks up a student, forgets about him for 4 days with no food or water [nydailynews.com] .

Just saying (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45569355)

I am not trolling I am dead serious. Take all the money the government spends on psychologists and psychiatrists and put it into building more prisons. The criminal act that one has committed, not the persons mental state, should stand alone in determining punishment.

This is bad (1)

koan (80826) | about 8 months ago | (#45569381)

Very bad.

While we're redefining things... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45569429)

Why not just redefine 'crime' to something very obscure and eliminate nearly all current crime?

I'd agree but... (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 8 months ago | (#45569439)

I'd agree if the old Asylum system hadn't be abused in such horrific ways in the past. The exact same thing would happen again. I think the one thing we've learned from our current system is that people with mental illness can usually lead happy productive lives. There's even growing evidence that the "voices" schizophrenics hear are actually beneficial for them (their psyche is trying to express itself) and our forced treatment and mistreatment of those afflicted does far more harm than good. We need to find better ways to help the mentally ill, but locking them up and forcing treatment just harms them further. If we had treatment centers that were more like elderly hospice care, then maybe. But we'd be right back to cinder-block buildings and padded rooms as soon as someone got a bill.

Re:I'd agree but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45569701)

There's even growing evidence that the "voices" schizophrenics hear are actually beneficial for them

Citation needed, and something scientific that doesn't come from a best-selling alarmist anti-psychiatry book on amazon, if at all possible, please.

Economics, this is never going to happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45569491)

In Oregon, the state closed down all the asylums and released all the inmates in the 1970's as a cost cutting measure. Mental health prisons are never going to come back as long as the state/government has to pay for it. You can only squeeze so much out of the families, and we have seen in other states that private corporation run prisons just don't work.

Did anyone read the article itself? (3, Insightful)

khb (266593) | about 8 months ago | (#45569775)

I know, on /. we don't need to. But it seems to me that the point that the Fuller appears to be making is that the current environment (presumably in the UK where he practices) is that a very large number of people are diagnosed with "mental illness" which is fine if they are continuing to be largely functional, seeing a therapist of their choosing, etc. The problem is that when someone is arrested the question of "mental illness" has two different dimensions ... is the person legally responsible for their actions (the legal dimension) vs. is the person undergoing treatment (or has ever undergone treatment).

People who are not responsible for their actions are a tiny minority. But IF someone has been identified as not responsible for their actions, why are they left roaming the streets? That isn't fair to them or to society.

Admittedly, there is always the question of "who is to say" and that begs the question to appropriate due process (clearly, it shouldn't just be some random doctor or family member has nominated them for commitment). And clearly there were abuses in the past. I don't think Fuller is the first to notice that the current situation is arguably worse (fraction of homeless people who are seriously ill ... of course, that begs the question of whether their mental condition caused the homelessness or the other way around :).

I'm far from sure that I agree with Fuller, but the vast majority of the comments seem to be missing his core argument.

medical model (3, Insightful)

John Allsup (987) | about 8 months ago | (#45569779)

the problem is that the medical model is nowhere effective at understanding, diagnosing and treating mental disorders as the physical medicine disciplines.  already many people get diagnosed and forced onto a drug therapy route, which doesn't treat the disorder, inhibits their learning, awareness and motivation to the point that they become unable to seek out effective avenues, and the psychiatrists just up or change the drugs and ignore their ineffectiveness.  people get trapped in a life of legally enforced drug dependence that benefits only pharmaceutical companies.  people who make suggestions like in the article believe that the medical model and standard therapies are more effective than they are.  people will.get unwell, forced to take treatments that don't work for the rest of their lives, and just be a drain on the taxpayer, being unable to work, and being able to do little other than blowing their state benefits on tobacco and alcohol.  the people who make such suggestions have no experience of actually being a mental patient, nor how ineffective typical medical treatment is.  this is the unfortunate reality of mental health, where successful recovery happens in spite of the system, not because of it, and successful methods that are not profitable to pharmaceutical giants are seriously underfunded even when reported in the literature.  end rant.  sent from a mobile, so apologies for typos.

Watch out for caffeine (5, Interesting)

dixonpete (1267776) | about 8 months ago | (#45569813)

I spent 25 years in the mental health system regarded as a seriously bipolar person. Turns out it was caffeine and to a lesser extent chocolate and a host of medicines that was causing the effect. I've been 5.5 years now symptom free. Never forget to eliminate environmental causes for mental and physical health issues!

Being arrested makes you a criminal? (1)

Nyder (754090) | about 8 months ago | (#45569845)

Just because you get arrested and taken to the police station does NOT make you a criminal. Being convicted of a crime is what makes you a criminal. So far the summary is just plain wrong and makes me wonder if the article is any better.

The police arrest a lot of people that they end up letting go, whether or not charges are brought up against them later. None of those people are criminals, unless they have been previously convicted of a crime.

Re:Being arrested makes you a criminal? (1)

Nyder (754090) | about 8 months ago | (#45569861)

okay, either I am seeing shit, or someone fixed that shit, because the summary say nothing about criminals.

fuck, maybe i should go back to bed.

Treatment availability is shit (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45569961)

From my experience, the idea that we need regress back to using "asylms" for unstable individuals is completely backwards.

I suffer from bipolar disorder type 1, and had a recent manic episode almost a year ago right after moving to a new state. A major problem with bipolar is that the individual isn't aware of how disfunctional they are once they're in the thick of it.

Before my episode was in full swing, my family and I tried to get myself voluntarily commited to a spych ward for treatment. To be admitted you have to go through the ER system. The only problem is that most ER's in urban centers are completely swamped and patients suffering from mental illness are given last priority. So basically you end up with a mentally unstable individuals stranded in the waiting rooms across the country waiting for a bed. Then, if you get a bed in the ER, you will have to wait however long it takes for a room to open up in the spych ward. They will not medicate you, because they don't have the authority to treat you without a proper psych evaluation, which you can't get until your in a spych ward.

So what happened to me in the end was that the ER was too stimulating for my manic brain and was making me dysphoric(dangerously grumpy) from being in an environment that was the opposite of therapeutic. So I would have to leave the hospital to maintain what sanity I had left. This happened in two different ERs. I was in the waiting rooms for an average of 6 hours.

Two days later, my mania was worse than imaginable and my significant other couldn't do anything till my behavior became dangerous enough that he could contact social services to have me involuntarily committed to the very same psych ward I tried to get into 2 days earlier. It was a 72-hour hold. And since my partner was the one that committed me, I had to go to court against him to be released by the state once I was coherent.

An absolute nightmare. Before they consider committing people to asylums, the medical system needs to drastically improve the availability of mental health services in these kinds of situations.

When I was young, during my first episode, at the Stanford hospital I waited more than 24-hours in the ER without any treatment before they had a bed available upstairs. And once I got in the ward, it was the weekend so they didn't have any treatment services available other than throwing sedatives at me until a psychiatrist could prescribe the proper medication.

An ex-convict's view.... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45569979)

As someone with major mental illness who also spent time in gaol for a heinous crime, this is a terribly thorny issue. Due to the trend of "community based care", many patients stuff up their meds, and so end up committing crimes. As there is a lack of proper care facilities, we end up incarcerated in prison. This is a hell of a scary place for anyone, let alone someone with mental illness. Prison Mental Health is a joke, as it concentrates on the use of Seroquel for behaviour management, and there is absolutely no focus on life skills or therapy. Furthemore, prison officers are not mental health nurses, yet in the facility I was incarcerated in, about 2/3 of inmates were on psych meds.

In many respects, the old 19th century model of asylums (i.e. secured hospitals) could well be a better way to reduce recidivism, and to help patients learn to manage their disease and life. Prison certainly doesn't help - I came out more unstable than when I went in, as well as being traumatised by the rapes, stabbings and suicides.

Yes, prison is a consequence of action, but for those who commit a crime when unwell, but fail the test for diminished responsibility (it can be hard to prove you didn't know you were doing wrong, let alone deal with how you might know that society/law judges your actions wrong, but due to delusional thinking you think you're justified in your actions) it usually only makes things much worse. Hence the suicide rate in prison and amongst parolees.

Da Bears (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45569997)

I liked him better when he was their quarterback and kept his damn mouth shut. Well, except for in the Super Bowl Shuffle.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...