OT: Colorado shooting

[Peter_Spaeth]

Scott, you obviously know and have thought a lot about all this, but I am uncomfortable on many levels with the notion of courts making more decisions to force people to take medications. I can imagine all sorts of situations where that would happen inappropriately, although I admit it's a trade off between type 1 and type 2 errors.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Scott, you obviously know and have thought a lot about all this, but I am uncomfortable on many levels with the notion of courts making more decisions to force people to take medications. I can imagine all sorts of situations where that would happen inappropriately, although I admit it's a trade off between type 1 and type 2 errors.

Peter, it's a very difficult situation. I could give you many examples where the court has been very compassionate with the mentally ill, and I know helped them. Other situations have not been so great. It's a trade-off between protecting civil rights and protecting the person from themselves, and protecting society from them. In Washington State, we have gone overboard with protecting civil rights, and the people who are put in charge of the mentally ill (in hospitals, jails, courts) are sadly ignorant and underfunded.

Regarding medications, the hospitals here in Washington have proven to be so ignorant at diagnosing mental illnesses, and then at choosing the appropriate medications, that I would have to agree with you. They are allowed to give anti-psychotics only to keep a patient from physically harming others, not to actually help the patient come down from their mania. In other words, a manic or psychotic individual can have their civil rights taken away for 72 hours by a judge, but then is allowed to keep the civil rights which allow them to reject medication to help alleviate the reason that they were incarcerated against their will. So, they are crazy enough to be locked up, but sane enough to not be healed. If I thought the psychiatric facilities had knowledgeable psychiatrists on hand, then I would say "let them diagnose the person and start them on antipsychotics (if they are psychotic) and mood suppressors if they are manic." To me, that is logical. But I didn't write the HIPPA laws, and I'm not a hospital in fear of lawsuits that is overreacting to every little line in said laws.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The notion of relying on psychiatrists and judges to make correct decisions about people's medication status is frightening. And it isn't just schizophrenia. Do we force depressed people to take anti-depressants? Do we keep forcing kids to take ritalin and the like over their parents' objections? Where does Big Brother's reach stop?

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The notion of relying on psychiatrists and judges to make correct decisions about people's medication status is frightening. And it isn't just schizophrenia. Do we force depressed people to take anti-depressants? Do we keep forcing kids to take ritalin and the like over their parents' objections? Where does Big Brother's reach stop?

You are right. But given the HIPPA laws, the only person who is allowed to make the decision is the mentally ill person - the person who is not in their right mind and who is the least capable of making the decision.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Runscott

You are right. But given the HIPPA laws, the only person who is allowed to make the decision is the mentally ill person - the person who is not in their right mind and who is the least capable of making the decision.

I have a cousin in law who passed away recently and he was a full blown schizophrenic. When anyone was around him, on his meds or not, they knew he was a bit off. I am sure there are different degrees of it but I wouldn't buy this shooter having it. If someone has schizophrenia, at least in my experiences, you know it. This guy was functioning in society fine and was not on medication. Sorry, in this case I am just not buying it (nor has that been a defense yet). I also think his demeanor in court today was a pre-plan for the start of an insanity plea. As I said on the phone yesterday, we really have to look at each individual situation. If I were the judge I would probably, if there were a way, let the victim's families decide his fate. (pipe dream, I know)

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Leon

I have a cousin in law who passed away recently and he was a full blown schizophrenic. When anyone was around him, on his meds or not, they know he was a bit off. I am sure there are different degrees of it but I wouldn't buy this shooter having it. If someone has schizophrenia, at least in my experiences, you know it. This guy was functioning in society fine and was not on medication. Sorry, in this case I am just not buying it (nor has that been a defense yet). I also think his demeanor in court today was a pre-plan for the start of an insanity plea. As I said on the phone yesterday, we really have to look at each individual situation. If I were the judge I would probably, if there were a way, let the victim's families decide his fate. (pipe dream, I know)

I'll reserve an execution sentence until I know more facts, but I very much appreciate our talk the other day and I tend to agree that he probably isn't mentally ill, for the same reason you gave.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Legal systems have always struggled with the definition of insanity as a defense. Does it mean the inability to tell right from wrong? Or does it mean the inability to control one's actions? Or something else? I think for most people, including myself, it's hard to believe someone who for months carefully plans a crime is not "sane" by any definition. On the other hand, if he truly believed he was The Joker, well, I don't know.