Re: Re: Re: Crazy Cannibal
Quote:
So, how can we prevent out of the blue stories like this? Is it possible without government mandates (potentially leading to a whole lot of power a government shouldn't have)?
I have no idea, and would be interested to hear from someone who has given this some considered thought. Some gut reactions are:
1. These things are uncommon and I think it's sick at some level the way the media feeds us these stories in this voyeuristic and salacious way and just as sick the way we love to consume them (I'm not having a go at you alone here Jyn, I read about this story heaps when it first occurred). But the thing is we have huge societies of millions or even billions of people living cheek to cheek. In this context, the number of deaths by murder, road accident, disease etc, are unbelievably low and speak strongly to the idea that humans, in general, are socially altruistic and considerate. For that reason I think it's a bad idea to make these stories part of the public consciousness and moreover to make extremely punitive laws in reaction to these one off horror events (where the person is obviously insane) as this would then create the precedents to punish less repulsive crimes.
2. Releasing mentally ill patients onto the street who had volunteered to be cared for in state institutions was a decision that lead to the death of many mentally ill people in Victoria in the 1990's. I would argue that cutting funding to mental health care increases the likelihood of incidents like this occurring.
3. It probably is possible to keep making incremental changes to areas where deaths and injuries occur (for example, making it law for people to wear bicycle helmets or seat belts, making it compulsory for cars to have air bags, making immunizations free and 'opt out'). But often these things lead to - at some level - a reduction of individual rights. Personally, I support laws for seat belts and immunizations and not driving through red lights, they make sense to me - but there are people out there who campaign against these laws.
These are issues we used to talk about a lot in the anarchist and socialist groups I was involved in (obviously over beers at the pub, it's silly to make blue prints for utopia). One of the things we used to discuss was the phenomenon where insane asylums were emptied in various revolutions - things like legalizing homosexuality, freeing women to enter the workplace etc, affect social mental health (I would guess this is obvious, I haven't got a psych degree though) and so I imagine that revolutionary changes to the way society is organized would impact heavily on the mental health of its citizens and have a lot of hope that it would be possible to have a society where mental illness was a lot less common that it is now.
Lots of sci-fi covers this sort of stuff too, there was as Niven story about the last adventure anyone ever had because they'd solved all problems of pain and misery etc. The Ian Banks 'culture' books explore these questions, as does LeGuin's 'The Lathe of Heaven' (in fact a lot of Le Guin discusses this).
Mmm, that was a ramble wasn't it!
RRRReeee:::: Crazy Cannibal
Quote:
Originally posted by Malacasta
3. It probably is possible to keep making incremental changes to areas where deaths and injuries occur (for example, making it law for people to wear bicycle helmets or seat belts, making it compulsory for cars to have air bags, making immunizations free and 'opt out'). But often these things lead to - at some level - a reduction of individual rights. Personally, I support laws for seat belts and immunizations and not driving through red lights, they make sense to me - but there are people out there who campaign against these laws.
I'm not so sure about immunizations, as there's so many of them, and I don't trust that every single thing touted as "This will stop you from getting X disease" is necessarily worthwhile; but seat belt laws I wholeheartedly agree with - especially the way they are here, which puts the onus on the manufacturers to install them, first, and if they're not installed, we the passengers aren't obligated to use them (eg buses; and classic vehicles aren't required to be altered before they can be driven). Not driving through red lights isn't so much a safety issue as an orderliness one. You're most welcome to drive out onto the freeway in front of a semi, and get yourself killed that way. Red lights are there to ensure that everyone gets a turn at driving over the middle of the intersection, and they do a good job at that so long as nobody ignores them.
Specifics aside, though, I completely agree with your concern that safety laws restrict freedom. We seem to have a society that's begging the government to put us all in little padded cells, to allow us to do nothing that could possibly hurt us... I don't really know why, but I'm actually imagining people in little Matrix capsules, as the ultimate result of this. The trouble is, people won't be voluntarily entering them; they'll be lobbying to have everyone forced into them. Restrict your own freedom if you like, but don't restrict mine!
Re: Re: Re: Crazy Cannibal
Quote:
Originally posted by Jyn
Snrrub, you apparently have a lot more faith in psychiatrists (and humanity in general) than I do. That's fair enough. I do not need a psychiatry degree, however, to determine that a man who randomly kills someone, hacks off body parts, and then swallows said body parts (all under the impression that said actions were a command from God) should never again be allowed to be a part of human society.
I haven't said that an individual such as the accused should necessarily be released into society. Rather, I think that they should be released into society only after review by mental health professionals. You seem to think that - with presumably no education in area - you know more about mental ilness than professionals, and come to the conclusion that the accused will be a danger to society for the rest of his life. Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Crazy Cannibal
Quote:
Originally posted by Snrrub
I haven't said that an individual such as the accused should necessarily be released into society. Rather, I think that they should be released into society only after review by mental health professionals. You seem to think that - with presumably no education in area - you know more about mental ilness than professionals,...
And I said that I think he should have been shot on the spot. Even if he had an all clear from all of the best professionals in the world, that does not redeem him. The worth of a human life in society is not a matter of professionalism (as there is no actual expertise on "humanity"). It is an opinion that varies from person to person, and we differ in this instance. Also, while I do not have a degree in psychiatry, you do presume too much to assume I have 0 education in it.
Quote:
Originally posted by Snrrub
...and come to the conclusion that the accused will be a danger to society for the rest of his life. Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
Evidence... as in studies? Now you're just being ridiculous, and you know it. Given the fact that we are discussing a particular individual, there are no studies in the world that would serve as the valid scientific evidence you request unless the experiments were performed on him specifically.
Now, my degree isn't in psychology, as we've already established, but I'm pretty sure schizophrenia can't be cured by therapy (/end sarcasm). This means that his good behavior (not murdering people) is ENTIRELY dependent on his ability to reliably take his medications.... and of course there is currently plenty of "evidence" that he is not inclined to do so.
Now, seriously, are you trying (and failing) to be funny? The fact that you seem to be saying you think it would be okay to release this particular man back into society after any amount of treatment is incredibly disturbing. You would put the lives of everyone around this man in danger because of your faith (in psychiatrists)?
Are you saying that, if this man got the green light from every renowned doctor in the world and was eventually released, you would knowingly get on a bus with him (because he's obviously no longer a danger to society)?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Crazy Cannibal
Quote:
Originally posted by Jyn
Evidence... as in studies?
Studies, or for that matter, any clinic evidence whatsoever that supports your claim that mental illnesses that can lead to violence are impossible to cure or manage with treatment.
Quote:
Originally posted by Jyn
Given the fact that we are discussing a particular individual, there are no studies in the world that would serve as the valid scientific evidence
(emphasis mine)
Oh really?
Quote:
Originally posted by Jyn
No, people like this shouldn't be put into prison. They should be summarily executed ... There is no cure for someone like him
You made this generalization implying that people with mental illnesses that are prone to violence cannot be cured. Either you can support that with evidence, or you pulled it out of your ass. At this point it's obvious that it's the latter.
Quote:
Originally posted by Jyn
but I'm pretty sure schizophrenia can't be cured by therapy (/end sarcasm).
And the doctors who have authority over his release take into account his progress while making their decisions, i.e. still crazy = still committed.
Quote:
Originally posted by Jyn
This means that his good behavior (not murdering people) is ENTIRELY dependent on his ability to reliably take his medications.... and of course there is currently plenty of "evidence" that he is not inclined to do so.
By your logic, any schizophrenic who doesn't reliably take medication should be "summarily executed" pre-emptively for fear they might commit a terrible and violent act.
Quote:
Originally posted by Jyn
You would put the lives of everyone around this man in danger because of your faith (in psychiatrists)?
You mean just like how people put their lives in danger when getting on a plain because of their faith in the skills of the pilot? Or likewise with surgeons during surgery? Our lives depend on the skills of professionals all the time.
Quote:
Originally posted by Jyn
Are you saying that, if this man got the green light from every renowned doctor in the world and was eventually released, you would knowingly get on a bus with him (because he's obviously no longer a danger to society)?
Yes I would get on the bus with him if he got the green light from every renowned doctor in the world. Those doctors know more about psychiatry than I do, and I realize that. Apparently you don't.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Crazy Cannibal
You apparently need some very important difference pointed out to you. Fine, I'll hold your hand
Quote:
Originally posted by Snrrub
Studies, or for that matter, any clinic evidence whatsoever that supports your claim that mental illnesses that can lead to violence are impossible to cure or manage with treatment.
I said that schizophrenia (specifically to the degree this guy suffers from it) cannot be cured by therapy alone, and requires medication. This is due to chemical and developmental imbalances that, get this, cannot be altered simply by talking about it. If you are not able to understand why this is the case without needing a study, then you have no business trying to discuss science. What you're doing is simply hoping and counting on my not posting a study so that it looks like you get "points". Nice try. Do it without a crutch.
Quote:
Originally posted by Snrrub
(emphasis mine)
Oh really?
You made this generalization implying that people with mental illnesses that are prone to violence cannot be cured. Either you can support that with evidence, or you pulled it out of your ass. At this point it's obvious that it's the latter.
Dude, do I have to spell everything out for you? Currently, there is no *cure* for schizophrenia. It would involve changes at the genetic level that simply don't exist right now (nor in the near future based on the limits of available funding for such research, but that's another topic), but I know you know that. So, why are you trying to make this case? Why do you need evidence of something you already know for truth? Oh, right, points.
Quote:
Originally posted by Snrrub
And the doctors who have authority over his release take into account his progress while making their decisions, i.e. still crazy = still committed.
the latter.
Did you miss the earlier comments from Malacasta and myself on how this is currently a huge problem? Lack of proper funding and poor decisions are releasing many people who shouldn't have been released. If you really, really want me to, I'm sure I could find all sorts of studies and stories on this, since this is actually an appropriate topic to request studies for.
Quote:
Originally posted by Snrrub
By your logic, any schizophrenic who doesn't reliably take medication should be "summarily executed" pre-emptively for fear they might commit a terrible and violent act.
By my logic, any schizophrenic who doesn't reliably take medication and has a history of killing, mutilating, and eating people should be summarily executed, yes. In the interest of preventing future acts committed by the same person. If a particular schizophrenic has never done so before, then there is no prior evidence that he/she will do so in the future, is there? Again, this is a case by case basis. It depends on individual people. Not all schizophrenics are going to go out and kill people just because this particular schizophrenic did so. Again, studies aren't going to help you when dealing with individuals in these types of situations.
Quote:
Originally posted by Snrrub
You mean just like how people put their lives in danger when getting on a plain because of their faith in the skills of the pilot? Or likewise with surgeons during surgery? Our lives depend on the skills of professionals all the time.
Yet another instance where I have to point out what should be an obvious difference to you. In every example you just gave, you're putting faith in a person's assessment of their own abilities. You do the same with psychiatrists to a degree, but the patient is an X factor. This particular X factor trumps any professional opinion the doctor is going to have. Why is this? It's because people are unpredictable, no matter what kind of pattern of behavior they show for any length of time. Psychiatry has been able to come up with a lot of generalized information about people and mental illness, and it helps when dealing with generalized issues. These cases, however, are individualized issues.
As I said, human behavior is unpredictable. You cannot count on a person who lived a pattern of complete non-violence for 30 years of their life to not commit murder in the 31st year. However, you have no reason to imprison or kill that person up until that point. On the flip side, you may have someone who has committed murder within that first 30 years. Even if you are able to 100% guarantee (Which you can't do. Do you also need proof on why something can't be 100% guaranteed?) that this person will never repeat his/her crimes, they are not, nor should they be, excused for their past. Now, that last statement is a matter of opinion that can vary from person to person, but, for all intents and purposes, it is how our society and its laws work (at least in the US).
Quote:
Originally posted by Snrrub
Yes I would get on the bus with him if he got the green light from every renowned doctor in the world.
...and hope he had taken his meds at least somewhat recently.
Quote:
Originally posted by Snrrub
Those doctors know more about psychiatry than I do, and I realize that. Apparently you don't.
I'm not claiming to know more about psychiatry than psychiatrists. I am claiming to know and understand more about psychiatry than you. I hope you're not a psychiatrist, because that would just be sad.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Crazy Cannibal
Quote:
Originally posted by Jyn
By my logic, any schizophrenic who doesn't reliably take medication and has a history of killing, mutilating, and eating people should be summarily executed, yes. In the interest of preventing future acts committed by the same person. If a particular schizophrenic has never done so before, then there is no prior evidence that he/she will do so in the future, is there?
(some emphasis mine)
So, you're proposing that we use the prior history of the insane to predict their potential danger to society in the future.
Quote:
Originally posted by Jyn
people are unpredictable, no matter what kind of pattern of behavior they show for any length of time.
...
As I said, human behavior is unpredictable. You cannot count on a person who lived a pattern of complete non-violence for 30 years of their life to not commit murder in the 31st year.
Your two statements seem to be entirely contradictory.
Quote:
Originally posted by Jyn
they are not, nor should they be, excused for their past.
So you think that people should be held criminally liable even if they are truly insane. The insane have a diminished capacity for rational thought. If you think that's not an excuse, then for consistency, you should also approve of adult criminal penalties being applied to children of any age for their actions. If a toddler burns a house down while playing with matches, should they be charged with arson and be locked up? They certainly shouldn't ever be excused for their past, right?
Quote:
Originally posted by Jyn
it is how our society and its laws work (at least in the US).
In western society, including the US, criminal liability is related to sanity.
Quote:
Originally posted by Jyn
I'm not claiming to know more about psychiatry than psychiatrists.
Yes you are. See below.
Quote:
Originally posted by Jyn
A few years go by, he'll miraculously improve, and they'll let him out.
You clearly think that the medical professionals in question will release a subject who hasn't legitimately improved in their condition. You also clearly think that they are wrong and you are right regarding the possibility of a subject with a mental condition recovering and living a peaceful, productive life afterwards.
