Posted by med_empowered on December 4, 2005, at 5:17:00
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.).
poster:med_empowered
thread:584162
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20051203/msgs/585300.html