MMMark
July 28, 2012, 3:51pm
62
Sat. 12/07/28 2012 16:52 EDT. post #229 Is Holmes mentally ill? ]
Wheylous:
[/url]I haven’t really considered whether murderers are all inherently mentally ill, but to me it seems from a naive perspective that not all murderers have to be mentally ill or psychopaths.
I’d appreciate any ideas.
Wheylous, have a look at this article by Szasz: Senseless
Three passages:
Do people really want to know why, on January 8, 2011, in Tucson, Arizona, a young man named Jared Lee Loughner engaged in mass murder? I submit they do not. Politicians, psychiatrists, pundits, and the press univocally assert that Loughner’s deed is the “senseless” product of mental illness.
And so have we if we prefer to believe that his self-destructive and destructive act is the senseless product of his “mental illness” rather than the result of his planned, “sensible” decision. The latter view is unpopular and unacceptable because it acknowledges Loughner’s humanity and free will, precisely the qualities that psychiatrists - aided and abetted by the criminal justice system - are intent on removing from persons they label “mad.”
Wedded to the idea that we have two kinds of lawbreakers in America, sane and insane, we are unable to attend to the human problems we call “mental illnesses.” But not to worry: We can always operate on the vocabulary.
The idea here (and in much of what Szasz writes) is that the myth of mental illness persists because it is a [rueful[/i] myth: Invoking it provides the appearance of “explaining” some unpleasant reality while simultaneously allowing the evasion of the tougher (and sometimes impossible) task of reaching a deeper understanding. Among other things, “mental illness” functions as a “anchorperson ” (explain-all).
Some other relevant quotes:
From Mental Illness: Sickness or Status? :
Action, behavior, conduct, call it what you will, is goal-directed and meaningful. Unless it’s “senseless mental illness.”
From Creativity and Criminality: The Two Faces of Responsibility :
The behavior of every person - regardless of whether we regard him as creative, criminal, or normal - is intentional. Hence, he is responsible for it. Nevertheless, we believe it is scientific to divide people into three groups: individuals with exceptionally large amounts of intentionality - creative geniuses; individuals with little or no intentionality - insane criminals; and individuals with an average amount of intentionality - ordinary persons:
From Does Insanity Cause Crime? :
The problem is that whenever a person factually guilty of committing a serious crime pleads insanity, the jury is asked to answer an intrinsically nonsensical question, namely, what “caused” the defendant to commit his wrongful act: his self or his mental illness?
More articles by Szasz:
Archive for Thomas Szasz
If you’re looking for ideas on the relationship between crime and “mental illness,” then Szasz is your source. If you’ve not read any of his books, don’t wait a day longer. I suggest these four, for starters:
The Manufacture of Madness Ceremonial Chemistry Insanity: The Idea and Its Consequences Ideology and Insanity
Prepare to “have your mind blown.”