Clayton Cramer posts a rough outline of his next book, "The Road to Hell is Paved With Good Intentions: Mental Illness, Deinstitutionalization, and Homelessness". As I've written before, I'm no fan of new government programs or statism, but I think our society made a big mistake when courts took the power to institutionalize the mentally ill away from state legislatures on the basis of civil rights. Mr. Cramer agrees and explains how we got where we are -- and hopefully his future book will suggest where we should go from here.
Alcohol and drug abuse are not the only layers of complexity on top of mental illness. Sometimes mental illness leads to criminal behavior. In the late 1990s, a rather strange character showed up at the church we attended in Rohnert Park, California. Jim had been sleeping in the fields on the edge of town with his dog, getting around by bicycle with a little trailer for the pooch. Our pastor had previous experience with mentally ill people, having worked in a homeless shelter, but this man did not quite fit the mold.Having recent first-hand experience with the mentally ill, I can say with confidence that despite my love of liberty there are some people who simply should not be allowed to roam free, for their own safety and for the good of society.Jim did not have an obvious drug or alcohol problem, and he told a story of governmental oppression that for the first five minutes, I could not immediately discount. His kids had been taken from him. His wife was locked up in a mental hospital. It was all a vast conspiracy against him! The more I talked to him, however, the more apparent it was that his thought processes, while not completely chaotic, were scattered and confused. Then he showed me the paperwork that had taken away his children. Jim was so confused in his thinking that he did not realize what that paperwork showed.
Jim's wife had been confined to a mental hospital, apparently because of physical abuse of their children. Jim's parental rights had been terminated—-apparently permanently—-by a court order in another county some months back, because Jim had been showing hardcore pornographic films to his five year old and his three year old, then molesting them. Why had the county not prosecuted Jim? The documents provided no information, but it seems likely that the prosecutor realized that a successful prosecution would require two small children to testify against their father—-having already lost their mother to mental illness. Under the best of conditions, this would have been a hard case to win in court, and it would certainly have been traumatic for the children.
Obviously, Jim was potentially a hazard to other children. In 1950, his mental illness would have earned him a commitment to a state mental hospital for the criminally insane. Even without the necessity for a criminal conviction, a judge would certainly have committed Jim against his will based on the testimony of a psychiatrist. Not today. Instead, Jim wandered the streets, telling his tale of woe. The best that we could hope for is that his mentally disordered thinking would be obvious enough to prevent anyone from putting their children at risk from Jim.
The deinstitutionalization movement resulted from an strange alliance of civil libertarians and economic conservatives. Thrown into the mixture were the arguments of libertarian psychologist Thomas Szasz who felt that "mental illness" was really not an empirically verifiable reality just a description by the speaker that someone else was acting oddly in their opinion. In retrospect, and after dealing with a high school friend who is in the grip of full blown schizophrenia, I agree that we made a wrong turn in our treatment of people who are really mentally ill.
Likewise, in the last year I have been observing the effects on the families of heavy drug users and, consequently, I am no longer of drug legalization.
Theory is great, but people, generally other people, suffer when we ignore the realities on the ground.
Slippery slope. I don't buy it.
The only excuse I'd accept for forcibly institutionalizing someone, and then only under strict scrutiny.
SF: Maybe you'd buy it if one of your oldest friends had just plowed through three red lights at 80mph because she mixed drugs and alcohol with her meds and decided to kill herself.
The problem with libertarians is that they're scared of everything. Yeah, slipperly slopes... ooooo. But sometimes the top of the slope is worse than the middle, and it's worth the energy it takes to let us down a little and hold us there.
Michael, that hypothetical did nothing to persuade me. First off, if she lived through it I'd have her brought up on criminal charges of endangerment. I don't care if she was my friend or not; personal responsibility for one's actions overwhelms most other considerations. Second, I support the right to commit suicide (in a manner that doesn't threaten or harm others).
To stretch the slippery slope analogy a bit further, you're correct that some slopes have varying grades, and some might be worth descending a short distance. But we're walking in the dark and the most we can say is that we don't think this particular slope will get any worse.
SF: It wasn't a hypothetical, my friend did that last month. She can't be charged because she's "insane", but she also can't be held against her will, as long as she promises to take her meds.
I agree with institutionalising the dangerously ill.
But clearly "it's for your own good" could be abused. You're not a socialist? Not an Armenian? Not a fan of cubism? Clearly, insane.
I don't know how to check and balance it. Some sort of right to appeal perhaps, but I don't know how it would work.
Who is the gentleman who wanders around Rohnert Park (mostly in front of the Raley's and the Post Office) who has kind of long/short hair (to his chin), tall and dark...about 45-50 years old?
Does anyone have beta on this guy (where he lives, what his story is, etc.?)
Please let me know!