Book Review "My Brother Ron: A Personal and Social History of the Deinstitutionalization of the Mentally Ill"

[ltorlo64]

Just read a book called “My Brother Ron: A Personal and Social history of the Deinstitutionalization of the Mentally Ill” by Clayton Cramer. Great book.

The book tracks the understanding and treatment of the mentally ill from our countries colonization in the early 1600s to the present. He includes a history of how the understanding of mental illness has changed over the same period including some theories on why we see more serious mental illness now than in the past.

The main point of his book is how liberal forces, for example the ACLU, worked tirelessly to prevent the housing and treatment of mentally ill people. He then documents the rise in homelessness, crime and the lowering of civility in areas where mentally ill people, who used to be housed in mental health hospitals, now live as mostly homeless people. He also shows how, as states were prevented from placing mentally ill people in mental hospitals, the homeless population exploded.

A very sad chapter goes through the many examples of violence perpetrated by mentally ill people, who the government knew were mentally ill, but were now prevented from really doing anything about it. He also provides examples of the catch 22 position the ACLU have placed states in. States are actually allowed to involuntarily commit the mentally ill, but only to treat them. The mentally ill, because of the ACLU, have the right to refuse treatment even though they generally do not have the capacity to understand what refusal of treatment means. Then, because the state is not allowed to force the mentally ill to be treated must release them.

He also makes the point that it is not guns, or any other dangerous implement, but a lack of ability to treat the mentally ill that is the cause of the majority of mass murders and shootings.

As I said, a great book and I highly recommend it.

[LAGC]

As you know, I'm a big donor and supporter of the ACLU and support their mission 99% of the time.

But I have to admit, the mass-closing of mental hospitals and making it much harder to involuntarily commit clearly deranged people is one issue where I think the ACLU may have went a bit too far. Don't get me wrong -- they did it with very good intentions -- after all, Stalin "disappeared" countless political foes by committing them to mental hospitals (after all, you MUST be mentally ill to not support the Party, right comrade?), so there really was cause to fear abuse. And many of those insane asylums really did have deplorable conditions, worse than any state prison (which is where most violently mentally ill end up these days, but only after they've committed a crime.) But I think maybe we could find a compromise that brings respectable mental health treatment centers (I hate to use the word "hospitals") back, with the proper oversight to make sure conditions aren't allowed to deteriorate, and safeguards to prevent government abuse.

Because when it comes down to ticking time bombs like Jared Loughner, Adam Lanza, Elliot Rodger, Seung-hui Cho, etc. etc. -- one common denominator in all of these mass shooter cases is that there were red flags all over the fucking place, but no one could anything about it. I'm not sure what the exact answer should be, by whose exact authority people should be able to be involuntarily committed, but I think maybe we need to start having that conversation as a country. Because its a problem that isn't going away.

Sounds like a very interesting book... I just checked and noticed it's only $1.49 on Amazon Kindle. I think I might just download it once I get off work in a few hours. Thanks for recommending.

[LAGC]

Wow, I just checked the author's bio. He's a history professor that teaches at the community college I attend. What a small world!

If I really like the book, I might just sign up for one of his history courses, as I might need to take an extra elective next Spring anyway, and history is one subject area where I'm admittedly sorely lacking.

[5.56NATO]

Many of them end up in office, concentrating the worst in Washington DC.

[LAGC]

Many of them end up in office, concentrating the worst in Washington DC.

But see, here's the thing -- we have to be very fucking careful here, because what we're talking about is effectively arresting people without due process rights and detaining them against their will, for an indeterminate amount of time.

As you are probably well aware, there is a loud, vocal minority who thinks most of us are "gun nuts" -- so if THEY are the ones writing the rules, that all gun owners are "mentally ill," well... I think you can connect the dots. So there needs to be serious safeguards in place to prevent abuse.

Also, as currently written, involuntary commitment to a mental hospital also makes it so you can no longer pass a NICS check -- for life.

So this all needs to be considered very fucking carefully.

[NAPOTS]

But see, here's the thing -- we have to be very fucking careful here, because what we're talking about is effectively arresting people without due process rights and detaining them against their will, for an indeterminate amount of time.

As you are probably well aware, there is a loud, vocal minority who thinks most of us are "gun nuts" -- so if THEY are the ones writing the rules, that all gun owners are "mentally ill," well... I think you can connect the dots. So there needs to be serious safeguards in place to prevent abuse.

Also, as currently written, involuntary commitment to a mental hospital also makes it so you can no longer pass a NICS check -- for life.

So this all needs to be considered very fucking carefully.



I actually agree with LAGC on this point You are talking about imprisonment of people. IMHO you can't do this involuntarily without a trial under the fifth amendment. This needs to be done very carefully. Voluntary treatment should be readily available. Involuntary treatment is tricky and I think needs to be there, but needs to be handled very carefully.

[5.56NATO]

Stalin had lots of folks commited for resisting his tyranny.
GHW Bush had Larry King committed after he found out Larry was going to ask him for help when he was busted.
"OMAHA, March 30
A Federal magistrate said today that Lawrence E. King Jr., a prominent businessman who was once active nationally in the Republican Party, is mentally incompetent to stand trial on charges of conspiracy and fraud in connection with the collapse of a credit union for the poor.

Magistrate Richard Kopf said he would recommend that Mr. King be taken to the Medical Center for Federal Prisoners at Rochester, Minn., for treatment. He ruled that the defendant understood the charges against him but would be unable to assist in his defense in what is expected to be a long and complex trial."
http://members.tranquility.net/~rwinkel/911/blackmail_scandal/a3886761c4a1d.htm

related;
"Nelly was interviewed by the FBI in September or October, 1984 when Lisa (Nelly) was 14 she went to Chicago with Larry King and 15-20 boys from Omaha. According to the FBI report, “She indicates she attended a party in Chicago with King and the male youths. She indicated George Bush was present…she sat at a table at the party wearing nothing but a negligee. She stated George Bush saw her on the table. She stated she saw George Bush pay King money and Bush left the party with a nineteen year old black boy named Brent [Brendt Thomas]. Lisa said the party Bush attended was in Chicago in September or October 1984. The Chicago Tribune of October 31, 1984 said Bush was in Illinois campaigning for congressional candidates at the end of October.”[16]

On February 7, 1990, US Magistrate Richard Kopf ordered that King indicted for bank fraud be sent to a federal medical facility in Springfield, Missouri for “mental health evaluation” without a formal motion from King’s attorneys. King was picked up and dispatched the day before President George H.W. Bush was to speak at a political fundraiser in Omaha. Having named Bush as one of his personal “friends,” King had reportedly purchased a ticket for the event and had subsequently been detained by the Secret Service.[17]"
http://mindcontrolblackassassins.com/tag/lawrence-e-king/


And more;
http://www.franklincase.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=85&Itemid=21
http://www.tomflocco.com/fs/PhotographerTied.htm
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2007/02/193672.php

[rktman]

I actually agree with LAGC on this point You are talking about imprisonment of people. IMHO you can't do this involuntarily without a trial under the fifth amendment. This needs to be done very carefully. Voluntary treatment should be readily available. Involuntary treatment is tricky and I think needs to be there, but needs to be handled very carefully.

Voluntary is the key, but some people are incapable of making the rational decision to get treatment.
The only other people with the rights to make that call would be both parents of the individual (and only if deemed necessary by a licensed professional psychologist). The Sandy Hook shooter should have been in a facility. I don't know the whole story (as no one really does) but I'm guessing the mother just had no clue how to help her son.
It really should be the issue of the day, instead of the gay rights BS.

[ltorlo64]

But see, here's the thing -- we have to be very fucking careful here, because what we're talking about is effectively arresting people without due process rights and detaining them against their will, for an indeterminate amount of time.

Mr. Cramer covers this extensively in his book. You are correct that was the argument used by liberals and the ACLU, but it was not the case. People could not be placed into a mental health hospital until either placed their by family or admitted by a doctor. It is not the same as being arrested, though that was the argument used by the ACLU. The argument about people being held for an indeterminate amount of time was false as well. People were held, at least while the hospitals were paid for locally, until the patent could live on their own. Some could never live on their own, but luckily these were the ones the ACLU used as examples of indeterminate and they are now living much better in alleys and cardboard boxes, eating out of trash cans.


As you are probably well aware, there is a loud, vocal minority who thinks most of us are "gun nuts" -- so if THEY are the ones writing the rules, that all gun owners are "mentally ill," well... I think you can connect the dots. So there needs to be serious safeguards in place to prevent abuse.

Also, as currently written, involuntary commitment to a mental hospital also makes it so you can no longer pass a NICS check -- for life.

So this all needs to be considered very fucking carefully.

This I will agree with. When mental hospitals were locally funded (meaning at no more than the state level) funding was such that only people who were really sick were admitted as there was not money to pay for others. When the federal government started funding mental health sanitariums people started dropping off their older relatives, the senile and infirm, and those who were going insane from untreated syphilis which lead to overcrowding. These were then used as examples of why we needed to get rid of the mental health sanitariums. If we keep the federal government out of this the ability to abuse becomes much less.

[ltorlo64]

I actually agree with LAGC on this point You are talking about imprisonment of people. IMHO you can't do this involuntarily without a trial under the fifth amendment. This needs to be done very carefully. Voluntary treatment should be readily available. Involuntary treatment is tricky and I think needs to be there, but needs to be handled very carefully.

Actually we are not talking about imprisoning people, though that is the way that the ACLU was able to frame the argument (with the help of Hollywood). Think about what people know about old mental health hospitals. Where do they get there understanding of how they operated, it is from the movie "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest." There is as much truth in that movie as there is in how Hollywood portrays CCW holders. In movies and television CCWs holders are just waiting for a chance to pull out their "piece" and kill some "low life scum" (almost always portrayed as a poor black person). This has now become truth to the vast majority of Americans, especially in big cities, even though truth is much different.

People were placed in hospitals to protect both themselves, and to protect society from people who could not distinguish delusions from reality. They were given a safe place to live, out of the elements, they were fed and cared for, and as we learned about mental illness, they were treated so they could distinguish.

It is interesting that when the ACLU was bringing lawsuits against the states for involuntary commitment they could not provide any concrete examples of when this had happened. Their arguments were mostly hypothetical, "this could happen so we need to get rid of involuntary commitment to make sure it does not." It was never enough for family of a judge to just decide to place someone in a hospital involuntarily. It took, at a minimum, a doctor and a judge and concrete reasons to have someone committed. Even in the cases where someone was committed that should not have been, they were almost always released within 24 hours because they are treated by a third doctor. All I am saying is the truth is far removed from the concerns.

[LAGC]

Well, I'm on Chapter 3 right now. Pretty interesting survey of mental disorders and how pervasive mental illness is.

I wasn't aware that a full 1% (2.5 million) of Americans were affected by schizophrenia.

This begs the question though (and maybe he answers it later in his book) -- where exactly are states and counties supposed to come up with all the money to build treatment centers for all those street vagrants suffering from such disease?

I imagine its a lot cheaper to just pay the homeless their meager Social Security Disability Insurance stipend than it is to actually house them and feed them and provide for all their healthcare needs.

Interesting read so far, though...

[ltorlo64]

Well, I'm on Chapter 3 right now. Pretty interesting survey of mental disorders and how pervasive mental illness is.

I wasn't aware that a full 1% (2.5 million) of Americans were affected by schizophrenia.

This begs the question though (and maybe he answers it later in his book) -- where exactly are states and counties supposed to come up with all the money to build treatment centers for all those street vagrants suffering from such disease?

I imagine its a lot cheaper to just pay the homeless their meager Social Security Disability Insurance stipend than it is to actually house them and feed them and provide for all their healthcare needs.

Interesting read so far, though...

Glad you like it. I will tell you he does provide some recommendations as he goes and a synopsis of his recommendations at the end, so I won't give them away.

I will tell you that part of the answer is early treatment. He gives some pretty interesting statistics of the success when started earlier vice later.

He has some other books on the history of the Second Amendment. I am going to put one of them on my Amazon wish list and see who that reads.

[1 Patriot-of-many]

But see, here's the thing -- we have to be very fucking careful here, because what we're talking about is effectively arresting people without due process rights and detaining them against their will, for an indeterminate amount of time.

As you are probably well aware, there is a loud, vocal minority who thinks most of us are "gun nuts" -- so if THEY are the ones writing the rules, that all gun owners are "mentally ill," well... I think you can connect the dots. So there needs to be serious safeguards in place to prevent abuse.

Also, as currently written, involuntary commitment to a mental hospital also makes it so you can no longer pass a NICS check -- for life.

So this all needs to be considered very fucking carefully. You realize your side of the aisle would imprison/ execute gun owners in a heartbeat if they could right?

[LAGC]

You realize your side of the aisle would imprison/ execute gun owners in a heartbeat if they could right?

The hard-core gun grabber zealots are still a small minority within the Democratic Party, albeit a loud one. Most Democrats just want universal background checks, but even then, it's not that high of a priority for them as many other pressing issues. It's mainly an issue with urban politicians, including Mayor Bloomberg, who of course still identifies more as a Republican than Democrat, only ran as an "independent" to get more votes.

[Oswald Bastable]

The hard-core gun grabber zealots are still a small minority within the Democratic Party, albeit a loud one. Most Democrats just want universal background checks, but even then, it's not that high of a priority for them as many other pressing issues. It's mainly an issue with urban politicians, including Mayor Bloomberg, who of course still identifies more as a Republican than Democrat, only ran as an "independent" to get more votes.

What a laugh...