![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 5 of 5. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by med_empowered on December 4, 2005, at 15:49:42
In reply to Re: Implants, ECT, posted by Squiggles on December 3, 2005, at 18:30:32
hi! OK, this is probably the only point we really, strongly disagree on. Sociologists have long disavowed a strong link between "crime" and "mental illness". First of all, you have to define crime. Crime is usually defined by the ruling class, in a method which protects their own interests. So...robbing a convenience store is armed robbery (in my state in the US, thats 7 years minimum in prison), even though the take is small and the company has adequate insurance to cover losses. Now, a corporation that say, produces asbestos or cigarettes or...Vioxx is usually only subject to *civil*, not *criminal* penalties, even when and if individuals in the chain of command repsonsible for the mis-deeds can be identified. Also notice that white-collar crime tends to be identified less often, prosecuted less vigorously, and results in fewer and shorter prison terms. Thus, the "crime" of the underclass is generally seen as more severe than the "crime" of the upper-classes.
Perhaps most importantly, its worth noting that psychiatric treatment doesn't reduce crime. Neuroleptics, which were designed to tranquilize and calm people, can actually induce both suicidality and interpersonal violence. Antidepressants can as well. Even lobotomies, which were the ultimate "treatment" to create docility, can actually create problems by destroying a sense of proper social behavior and self-restraint.
Again...back to the sociologists. Crime tends to be *functional*, not *dysfunctional*--Durkheim said "even in a society of saints, there would still be sinners". Crime helps define and re-define what is good/bad, acceptable/unacceptable within a certain society. Even schizophrenia isn't associated with a high crime rate; even E. Fuller Torrey points that out in his biopsychiatric orthodox tome, "Surviving Schizophrenia". Just about any mental health handout always informs the readers: crazy does not always equal dangerous.
As for the anti-psychiatry intellectuals..they're pretty interesting. Foucault did a lot of social theory work, much of which is utterly fascinating and (I think) insightful. Szasz has his own libertarian agenda to push which I disagree with, but he does hit on some important points, especially in "The Myth Of Mental Illness" The later stuff is more of a mixed bag.
Laing, interestingly, was never really anti-psychiatry. He RX'd medications and had patients who were both medicated and unmedicated. HIs whole contribution was viewing mental illness as at least partly a coping mechanism (an act of sanity and defiance in an uncaring, essentially insane world). Plus, he analyzed psychosis for content, trying to glean information that could prove helpfulto the patient and to society at large. His work is striking because it is so *inquisitive* and *value-free*; he never really passed judgement on the nature of mental illness or anything else...he was just really curious. Foucault also didn't really care to break down the origins of deviant behavior; his main concern was how the behavior was dealt with in a society, which is where the "medicalization of deviance" model came from.
Now, for the involuntary treament issue...I dont know how the law is in canda, but here in the US..."preventitive detention" for *crimes* is flat out illegal/uncontitutional. If a guy looks shifty-eyes and you think he might climb up on a water tower and open fire, the police can certainly watch him, but they can't arrest/detain him b/c of what he *might* do. Why should one apply a different standard to the mentally ill? Plus, its worth noting that when harm is done in mental illness, it is usually to the self...although you seem to imply that schizophrenics and bipolars are more likely than unipolar depressives to hurt others, the indication is really that suicide is *huge* within schizophrenia (15%) and bipolar (20%), while the interpersonal violent crime rate isn't much different than that found in similarly matched controls (if you control for sex, race, age, socio-economic status, etc.).
Posted by Squiggles on December 4, 2005, at 15:49:42
In reply to Crime, mental illness, anti-psychiatry..., posted by med_empowered on December 4, 2005, at 5:17:00
> hi! OK, this is probably the only point we really, strongly disagree on.
I take it you agree about the causality of
mental illness, then.Sociologists have long disavowed a strong link between "crime" and "mental illness".
Well, I've been doing some search on this topic
and it does not seem to be the case; to the
contrary a link is seen for a number of reasons.
And the irony of it all, is that personal
liberties are better protected by recognizing
this link, than denying it. So, that a woman
who kills her children in post-partum depression
is seen as not guilty by reason of insanity.
Whereas, the contrary libertarian/individualist
interpretation would result in a life sentence
if not death sentence in Texas.I found an interesting article on this
in Health Canada:http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ncfv-cnivf/familyviolence/html/fvstereotype_e.html
First of all, you have to define crime.
That is not difficult -- just look the
CODE.Crime is usually defined by the ruling class, in a method which protects their own interests. So...robbing a convenience store is armed robbery (in my state in the US, thats 7 years minimum in prison), even though the take is small and the company has adequate insurance to cover losses. Now, a corporation that say, produces asbestos or cigarettes or...Vioxx is usually only subject to *civil*, not *criminal* penalties, even when and if individuals in the chain of command repsonsible for the mis-deeds can be identified. Also notice that white-collar crime tends to be identified less often, prosecuted less vigorously, and results in fewer and shorter prison terms. Thus, the "crime" of the underclass is generally seen as more severe than the "crime" of the upper-classes.
I don't think the law discriminates between
a manic-depressive enterpreneur who embezzles
thousands of pensioners' funds, and a peti-thief
who robs a Seven-Eleven. Though, I grant you that
the popular attitude is not the same as that
of the law.
>
> Perhaps most importantly, its worth noting that psychiatric treatment doesn't reduce crime. Neuroleptics, which were designed to tranquilize and calm people, can actually induce both suicidality and interpersonal violence. Antidepressants can as well. Even lobotomies, which were the ultimate "treatment" to create docility, can actually create problems by destroying a sense of proper social behavior and self-restraint.Neuroleptics and lobotomies are not common
anymore. Drugs are improving and actually
making mentally ill people better and more
stable. There are problems with staying on
drugs which are intolerable and that can lead
to emotional turmoil and crime. But here the
problem is not with drugs, but with bad drugs.
That does not imply that NO drugs are better
or result in less crime.
>
> Again...back to the sociologists. Crime tends to be *functional*, not *dysfunctional*--Durkheim said "even in a society of saints, there would still be sinners". Crime helps define and re-define what is good/bad, acceptable/unacceptable within a certain society. Even schizophrenia isn't associated with a high crime rate; even E. Fuller Torrey points that out in his biopsychiatric orthodox tome, "Surviving Schizophrenia". Just about any mental health handout always informs the readers: crazy does not always equal dangerous.
>When speaking about crime and mental illness,
I was referring to despair and anguish which
results within our culture, and in so, within
our social values. I do not know of too many
societies which have presently maintained
an anarchic state, so we do share more or less
the same definition of what is good and bad
in our world.
> As for the anti-psychiatry intellectuals..they're pretty interesting. Foucault did a lot of social theory work, much of which is utterly fascinating and (I think) insightful. Szasz has his own libertarian agenda to push which I disagree with, but he does hit on some important points, especially in "The Myth Of Mental Illness" The later stuff is more of a mixed bag.I don't find them interesting at all.
>
> Laing, interestingly, was never really anti-psychiatry. He RX'd medications and had patients who were both medicated and unmedicated. HIs whole contribution was viewing mental illness as at least partly a coping mechanism (an act of sanity and defiance in an uncaring, essentially insane world). Plus, he analyzed psychosis for content, trying to glean information that could prove helpfulto the patient and to society at large. His work is striking because it is so *inquisitive* and *value-free*; he never really passed judgement on the nature of mental illness or anything else...he was just really curious. Foucault also didn't really care to break down the origins of deviant behavior; his main concern was how the behavior was dealt with in a society, which is where the "medicalization of deviance" model came from.I actually saw Laing when I was an undergraduate
at my university. I still have photos of the
lecture, hee. I thought he was good poet.
When I studied Psychology I did not consider
him to be a psychologist.
>
> Now, for the involuntary treament issue...I dont know how the law is in canda, but here in the US..."preventitive detention" for *crimes* is flat out illegal/uncontitutional. If a guy looks shifty-eyes and you think he might climb up on a water tower and open fire, the police can certainly watch him, but they can't arrest/detain him b/c of what he *might* do. Why should one apply a different standard to the mentally ill?I am not sure what you mean here.
Plus, its worth noting that when harm is done in mental illness, it is usually to the self...although you seem to imply that schizophrenics and bipolars are more likely than unipolar depressives to hurt others, the indication is really that suicide is *huge* within schizophrenia (15%) and bipolar (20%), while the interpersonal violent crime rate isn't much different than that found in similarly matched controls (if you control for sex, race, age, socio-economic status, etc.).
Suicide may be common in all sorts of mental
illness -- it is so horrible to be in that state
that whatever its variation, escaping it is
the only way out, if you are not medicated.
The difference between unipolar, and bipolar
and schizophrenia, is the aggressive tendency
in the manic phase, and the persecutory states
in schizophrenia. I think a lot of mentally
ill people just suffer through these conditions,
but the ones who do commit crimes, are not in
a sane state. I don't see why anyone would
prefer to treat ill people as if they were free
to be ill rather than give them medication.
That does not make sense to me at all.
Squiggles
Posted by alexandra_k on December 4, 2005, at 16:31:55
In reply to Re: Crime, mental illness, anti-psychiatry..., posted by Squiggles on December 4, 2005, at 6:39:30
> Sociologists have long disavowed a strong link between "crime" and "mental illness".
And as for the links they have found...
If someone says they are thinking of hurting / killing someone then they are more likely to be classified as having a "mental illness".
Sometimes... Criminal behaviours are even part of the diagnostic criteria for "mental illness" (e.g., oppositional defiance, anti-social personality)
> personal
> liberties are better protected by recognizing
> this link, than denying it. So, that a woman
> who kills her children in post-partum depression
> is seen as not guilty by reason of insanity.Hmm. Isn't it... guilty (she did in fact do it) but not morally responsible (no retributive justice required).
I have issues with the "mental illness defence". IMO first issue: did they do it? Second issue: will they spend their sentance in prison or in a mental institution. I don't think people should get reduced sentances in virtue of the insanity defence.
One man... Was sleeping... In his sleep (apparantly) he got out of bed... Drove to his x wifes house... Managed to stop through 4 traffic light intersections... Shot his wife... Drove home... Went to bed. He got off. Insanity defence. I don't think so...
Same with an 'alter' committing a violent crime...
But I guess most would disagree with me...
> I don't think the law discriminates between
> a manic-depressive enterpreneur who embezzles
> thousands of pensioners' funds, and a peti-thief
> who robs a Seven-Eleven.Well... The consequences / sentances are different are they not?
> There are problems with staying on
> drugs which are intolerable and that can lead
> to emotional turmoil and crime. But here the
> problem is not with drugs, but with bad drugs.
> That does not imply that NO drugs are better
> or result in less crime.That might not imply that NO drugs are better. But it might be the case that for some individuals... NO drugs are in fact better...
And... There is also evidence that some drugs can in fact induce violence / hostility in people who were not violent / hostile before taking the drug.Benzodiazapines can do this, for example...
> I do not know of too many
> societies which have presently maintained
> an anarchic state, so we do share more or less
> the same definition of what is good and bad
> in our world.?
Lost ya..> Suicide may be common in all sorts of mental
> illness -- it is so horrible to be in that state
> that whatever its variation, escaping it is
> the only way out, if you are not medicated.?
Do you think this is true for all people?
That without medication escape (via suicide) is the 'only way out'?
You don't think that some people manage to find their way out without medication?> The difference between unipolar, and bipolar
> and schizophrenia, is the aggressive tendency
> in the manic phase, and the persecutory states
> in schizophrenia.Which version of the DSM did you find that in?
> I don't see why anyone would
> prefer to treat ill people as if they were free
> to be ill rather than give them medication.
> That does not make sense to me at all.?
Who says they are ill?
Do they think this themself or does someone else - a psychiatrist? you? - decide whether they are ill or not?
Posted by alexandra_k on December 4, 2005, at 16:32:38
In reply to Crime, mental illness, anti-psychiatry..., posted by med_empowered on December 4, 2005, at 5:17:00
Thanks for that.
I find it very interesting.
Haven't done much reading on it myself...
But...
Have heard a lot about it.:-)
Posted by Squiggles on December 4, 2005, at 16:53:24
In reply to Re: Crime, mental illness, anti-psychiatry... » Squiggles, posted by alexandra_k on December 4, 2005, at 16:31:55
> > Sociologists have long disavowed a strong link between "crime" and "mental illness".
>
> And as for the links they have found...
> If someone says they are thinking of hurting / killing someone then they are more likely to be classified as having a "mental illness".
> Sometimes... Criminal behaviours are even part of the diagnostic criteria for "mental illness" (e.g., oppositional defiance, anti-social personality)
>They are more likely to be classifed as
mentally ill? I don't know about that --
perhaps they are more likely to be
perceived as uttering a threat.> > personal
> > liberties are better protected by recognizing
> > this link, than denying it. So, that a woman
> > who kills her children in post-partum depression
> > is seen as not guilty by reason of insanity.
>
> Hmm. Isn't it... guilty (she did in fact do it) but not morally responsible (no retributive justice required).I thought "moral insanity" was a concept that
left us about a hundred years ago in law.
>
> I have issues with the "mental illness defence". IMO first issue: did they do it? Second issue: will they spend their sentance in prison or in a mental institution. I don't think people should get reduced sentances in virtue of the insanity defence.I wouldn't generalize on these cases - each one
has to be judged on its own merits and evidence.
But if a person can be proved to be mentally ill,
then the sentence will vary accordingly.
>
> One man... Was sleeping... In his sleep (apparantly) he got out of bed... Drove to his x wifes house... Managed to stop through 4 traffic light intersections... Shot his wife... Drove home... Went to bed. He got off. Insanity defence. I don't think so...He could have been insane or not. Proof is
required.
>
> Same with an 'alter' committing a violent crime...
>
> But I guess most would disagree with me...An "alter"? I don;t know what that means.
>
> > I don't think the law discriminates between
> > a manic-depressive enterpreneur who embezzles
> > thousands of pensioners' funds, and a peti-thief
> > who robs a Seven-Eleven.
>
> Well... The consequences / sentances are different are they not?In some cases that may be so - a miscarriage
of justice.
>
> > There are problems with staying on
> > drugs which are intolerable and that can lead
> > to emotional turmoil and crime. But here the
> > problem is not with drugs, but with bad drugs.
> > That does not imply that NO drugs are better
> > or result in less crime.
>
> That might not imply that NO drugs are better. But it might be the case that for some individuals... NO drugs are in fact better...Perhaps, it depends on the severity of the
mental illness.
> And... There is also evidence that some drugs can in fact induce violence / hostility in people who were not violent / hostile before taking the drug.Yes, I mentioned that, as in the case of
the term of withdrawal. That is more likely,
and the wrong drug.
>
> Benzodiazapines can do this, for example...The withdrawal is terrible with some, but is
not as bad as stopping a psychoactive drug
for mental illness.>
> > I do not know of too many
> > societies which have presently maintained
> > an anarchic state, so we do share more or less
> > the same definition of what is good and bad
> > in our world.
>
> ?
> Lost ya..That was in reference to the relativity of
what is wrong and right.
>
> > Suicide may be common in all sorts of mental
> > illness -- it is so horrible to be in that state
> > that whatever its variation, escaping it is
> > the only way out, if you are not medicated.
>
> ?
> Do you think this is true for all people?No.
> That without medication escape (via suicide) is the 'only way out'?
No.
> You don't think that some people manage to find their way out without medication?
I don't know of any except the testimonials
I have seen on the anti-psychiatry sites.
In the medical texts, mental illness, once
it starts is chronic, with the exception of
a few people who have cylothimea (in bipolar)
with many years intervening; but even this
illness is chronic.
>
> > The difference between unipolar, and bipolar
> > and schizophrenia, is the aggressive tendency
> > in the manic phase, and the persecutory states
> > in schizophrenia.
>
> Which version of the DSM did you find that in?It's my opinion.
>
> > I don't see why anyone would
> > prefer to treat ill people as if they were free
> > to be ill rather than give them medication.
> > That does not make sense to me at all.
>
> ?
> Who says they are ill?
> Do they think this themself or does someone else - a psychiatrist? you? - decide whether they are ill or not?Well, in that case there is nothing left to say.
Unless, someone says they are mentally ill, then
they are mentally ill and not otherwise, seems
to be what you are suggesting.
Squiggles
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.