Posted by
Andrews on Wednesday, June 18, 2008 3:20:11 AM
It is funny, after writing my lengthy description of my views on mental illness, I realized how completely irrelevant it is, at least in some ways.
I originally intended to use it to discuss the use of coercive mental health laws, and I do intend to do so. And in that specific area it may have some relevance. However, the more I think about it, the less it truly matters. I am glad I put my position on my blog for everyone to see, but even if I am completely wrong, it doesn't change much of my thinking.
Why is that? Because as I have said several places, in criminal justice specifically, motive should really be largely irrelevant. Unless, of course, something is completely without motive, a true accident, or the bad outcome of a legal motive, but so long as there is a criminal motive, I don't care what it is.
Think of it this way. There are three men who commit multiple murders. One does it because he chose to be evil. One fits my definition of mental illness, bad socialization led him to incorrect thoughts. The third has some biological disorder which matches the modern view of mental illness. The question is, would you treat them differently?
And my answer is no. I would treat every one the same, as they all pose the same threat to the rest of us. Their motives and the origins of those motives are irrelevant.
As I said, the illness model of bad behavior lies at the heart of involuntary commitment, and both the illness and the specifically biological models are sued to justify a number of nanny-state interventions, so it is good to think about the nature of mental illness. But when it comes to criminal justice, the more I think about things, the less I think that the origins of one's acts matters, and the more important become the acts themselves.
POSTSCRIPT
Now some will say my earlier pragmatic approach to prison should consider motive, as those who cannot stop offending need to be incarcerated for life, while others may be rehabilitated. And that may be true. However, as rehabilitation seems a rather hit or miss process, I think relying on it as part of our penal system is a bad idea. Also, it is rather hard to tell apart those who may reform and those who will not, it is probably best to treat all prisoners as if they were the worst sort of offender. Judges and parole boards trying to see into the hearts of convicts is a big part of what got us into our current mess. Better to assume the worst, if only for the safety of those who are not criminals.