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

[Beet]

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

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

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

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

http://www.slate.com/id/2280619/

[Senator Sbane]

Yeah, just because someone is schizophrenic, doesn't mean they will go out there and commit violence. There has to be more to the story, though I suspect neither left nor right will like all of it.

[Insula Dei]

The whole 'he just was nuts' idea is quite offensive to people with mental illnesses, if you ask me. So, yeah, I heavily agree with what's being said here.

[Grumps]

Senseless violence is "insane". 

[shua]

surely mental illness itself isn't an explanation -  nothing can fully be that. on the other hand a particular experience of mental illness looks like it may be part of the story. schizophrenics are not generally violent, absolutely - though the form the paranoid delusions take might make a difference.  what the mental illness suggests is that it's less likely the killer was operating out of an ideology or agenda of the type that could be coherent to anyone else.  was there something about his mental illness that made what he did seem justifiable?  we don't know.

[Gustaf]

I don't think sane people are likely to go off and randomly massacer a bunch of strangers if they get drunk. They might beat the wife to death or something though.

[J. J.]

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

One of newspapers reported that.  The things that are coming out certainly support a mental health problem, including the fact that his community college expelled him, unless he had a metal health evaluation.

Obviously not everyone mentally ill is violent.

[Beet]

I don't think sane people are likely to go off and randomly massacer a bunch of strangers if they get drunk. They might beat the wife to death or something though.

Actually, plenty of sober, sane people go off and randomly massacre a bunch of strangers. Maybe you don't get that so much in Sweden.

[wormyguy]

I don't think sane people are likely to go off and randomly massacer a bunch of strangers if they get drunk. They might beat the wife to death or something though.

Actually, plenty of sober, sane people go off and randomly massacre a bunch of strangers. Maybe you don't get that so much in Sweden.

I believe it's because their state-run television has been carefully cleansed of any vagrant Glenn Beck mind-control rays.

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

     People generally don't commit acts of violence for no reason, though with people who are rather unhinged those reasons can be altogether senseless & arbitrary. With that said, I definitely agree that those reasons should be considered, whether or not Loughner is insane.

[Sam Spade]

Who the heck cares what his "real reasons" were, so long as this guy fries for what he did.

[Torie]

I had a relative, who is very pacific, punch a pedestrian at random while in a psychotic break. If the voices told him to commit mass murder, would he? Almost certainly not. But if on the edge, or in the zone, with a propensity for violence, and a lot of anger, the psychosis plus factor could well be what pushed this perp over the edge.

Now if he had an accomplice, all of that I think is out the window. Psychotics are loners, and that degree of planning, does not comport for a nutter just doing what the voices tell him to do.

JMO of course, but in this case, I think, a rather educated one. I have taken a course on mental illness, and read many articles on it, and a couple of books. FWIW.

[Nym90]

Who the heck cares what his "real reasons" were, so long as this guy fries for what he did.

Because understanding those reasons will help to prevent it from happening in the future.

[Sibboleth]

If the emphasis is on the word 'explanation' then, yes, yes we are. People with serious mental health problems are not only mentally ill.

[Sam Spade]

Who the heck cares what his "real reasons" were, so long as this guy fries for what he did.

Because understanding those reasons will help to prevent it from happening in the future.

I'd like to place bets on that.

[Nym90]

But yeah, the vast majority of mentally ill people don't go on shooting sprees, so mental illness is certainly not an excuse for committing crimes. As an explanation, it is only a very small part of the overall story. Those who are ill still have an obligation to control their illness and prevent it from hurting others, and we certainly should strongly punish those who are unwilling or unable to.

Drug and alcohol addiction certainly are far greater overall scourges on society than these types of illnesses.

The greatest factor of all IMO is being instilled with strong moral values at a young age by one's parents or guardians. Respect for others, the value of life, etc., things that probably seem second nature to many of us, but we often do not realize these are learned, not qualities that we are born with. I would hazard a guess that unstable or difficult parental relationships would be more highly correlated with criminal behavior than almost anything else.

[Beet]

Well this is going to be a legal issue; I'd imagine the defense will rely on mental illness.

[bgwah]

But yeah, the vast majority of mentally ill people don't go on shooting sprees, so mental illness is certainly not an excuse for committing crimes. As an explanation, it is only a very small part of the overall story. Those who are ill still have an obligation to control their illness and prevent it from hurting others, and we certainly should strongly punish those who are unwilling or unable to.

You're a monster. A clueless monster.

[Snowguy716]

But yeah, the vast majority of mentally ill people don't go on shooting sprees, so mental illness is certainly not an excuse for committing crimes. As an explanation, it is only a very small part of the overall story. Those who are ill still have an obligation to control their illness and prevent it from hurting others, and we certainly should strongly punish those who are unwilling or unable to.

You're a monster. A clueless monster.

Yeah.. Nym.. are you sure that's what you meant?  That we should be 'strongly 'punishing people who commit crimes because they can't help themselves?

[Beet]

But yeah, the vast majority of mentally ill people don't go on shooting sprees, so mental illness is certainly not an excuse for committing crimes. As an explanation, it is only a very small part of the overall story. Those who are ill still have an obligation to control their illness and prevent it from hurting others, and we certainly should strongly punish those who are unwilling or unable to.

You're a monster. A clueless monster.

I don't think that's fair; he phrased something poorly. I mean, if someone has a condition in theory where they can't help attempting violence on others from time to time, they are not going to be granted their freedom. And even if this isn't meant as a punishment, it would have almost the same effect.

[Gustaf]

I don't think sane people are likely to go off and randomly massacer a bunch of strangers if they get drunk. They might beat the wife to death or something though.

Actually, plenty of sober, sane people go off and randomly massacre a bunch of strangers. Maybe you don't get that so much in Sweden.

Really? Cite?

(and no, I can't think of a single case in Sweden where that has happened - depending on how you define being sane, of course)

[Mr. Taft Republican]

Who the heck cares what his "real reasons" were, so long as this guy fries for what he did.

Because understanding those reasons will help to prevent it from happening in the future.

There have been a lot of shootings before this one, not saying its any less reprehensible. I don't think understanding does that much.

[opebo]

Who the heck cares what his "real reasons" were, so long as this guy fries for what he did.

I'm not sure if it is permissible to express this, but some people might consider this type of knowledge of causation to be potentially useful for formulating policies of prevention.

[Gravis Marketing]

Anyone remember "air rage"? People going batsh**t crazy and abusing flight attendants on flights. It got a lot of publicity, which generated a lot more incidents of people behaving mentally ill, then 9/11 happened and air travel became more regulated and the awareness of safety became a very big deal, and suddenly, air rage vanished. Almost as if the incidence of mental illness alone is not the sole determining factor in whether mentally ill people commit a certain form of violence or not.

[nclib]

But yeah, the vast majority of mentally ill people don't go on shooting sprees, so mental illness is certainly not an excuse for committing crimes.

Yes. Another issue is that while some mental illnesses may increase the chance of a person being violent, other mental illnesses do not. It is unfortunate to lump all people with mental illnesses together.