What should we do to identify the psychos

[aneeshm]

coming from you is ridiculous.

Dare I say: ad homimen?

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

What (if anything) should be done to ensure that crazy people don't go on killing sprees like what happened at Virginia Tech. And no cop outs by saying ban guns, we want to protect from any kind of killing spree.

Discuss.

Our friend, the VT gunman, was already identified as a wacko in 2005, and was required to undergo therapy. Somehow I doubt he did that.

I see the problem in the US, in the following scope:

1) Inept mental health professionals.

Recognition of mental illness is purely subjective, so it takes special talent to be able to identify the murderously deranged. Lunatics tend to hide their true intentions, and it takes a specially trained person to coax such ideation out of them. Right now, such training doesn't exist. Most mental health professionals learn their skills by picking it up as they go along, so that there is much reliance on intuition, which doesn't come naturally to everyone.

2) No system of referral of the dangerously mentally ill.

The only way that a violently crazed person would be referred to the authorities is if a psychiatrist decided it was necessary. The only time it is legally necessary to do so is if the patient poses a threat to himself or others. Even so, the psychiatrist is only required to warn and protect whatever party is threatened. If there is no specific threat, there is no legal obligation. There should be a broader legal requirement for referring dangerous psychos, and there should be a system that limits their exposure to society, either within a mental hospital or by having them wear GPS-bracelets. Right now, the only way the police can detain a crazy is if he actually threatens to commit some crime.

3) Ineffective system for removing the dangerously mentally ill from society at large.

Follows #2. If the dangerously insane can be identified early, they can be (temporarily) removed from public exposure, and potentially treated. Right now, the mentally ill have so many rights, it's next to impossible to commit them to a mental hospital. Even when it's done, they get out quickly. The common thread I see in all these newsworthy cases is that all of them were identified long ago as being dangerous but next to nothing was done about it.

 

[Ayatollah So]

I think the premise of the thread is wrong. We don't have to identify the psychos. What we should do instead is to treat and help people before they go too far down the road to psycho. This won't stop the problem but will reduce it, along with plenty of other problems.

More specifically, this guy and the Columbine shooters were victims of bullying, which there is plenty that society can do about. We need to train victims of bullying how to deal with such situations, first and foremost; then most of them will be able to transform their situation in ways that don't require lots of bullets. And since you can't generally know who's going to be a victim of bullying, this means you have to train pretty much everyone.

IMHO, it also wouldn't hurt to create a culture in which students stick up for each other as need be. The imperative to do so needn't be accepted by everyone, or even by a majority, to make a major difference.

 

[Mirc]

I don't think anything can be done. The cost of implementing anything good enough + the error range of the system (someone could be misdiagnosed as a psycho...) are more than the benefits that the system would bring.

Make a questionnaire, with a question "Are you a psycho?"

This reminds me, when I was applying for a visa for the UK, I noticed three "special" questions:

- have you ever had anything to do with genocidal activities?
- have you been in jail for more than 20 years?
- are you a terrorist?

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

I think the premise of the thread is wrong. We don't have to identify the psychos. What we should do instead is to treat and help people before they go too far down the road to psycho. This won't stop the problem but will reduce it, along with plenty of other problems.

More specifically, this guy and the Columbine shooters were victims of bullying, which there is plenty that society can do about. We need to train victims of bullying how to deal with such situations, first and foremost; then most of them will be able to transform their situation in ways that don't require lots of bullets. And since you can't generally know who's going to be a victim of bullying, this means you have to train pretty much everyone.

IMHO, it also wouldn't hurt to create a culture in which students stick up for each other as need be. The imperative to do so needn't be accepted by everyone, or even by a majority, to make a major difference.

What by having mandatory anti-bullying class, self-esteem class and more character counts programs in public schools?

 

[CartesianFart]

This reminds me, when I was applying for a visa for the UK, I noticed three "special" questions:

- have you ever had anything to do with genocidal activities?
- have you been in jail for more than 20 years?
- are you a terrorist?

That is funny.My question,can a psycho lie and manipulate the system in order to go on a psychotic killing spree???I think yes.

 

[useless]

everyone is sane.. just some are less saner then others..

 

[mdwh]

Our friend, the VT gunman, was already identified as a wacko in 2005, and was required to undergo therapy. Somehow I doubt he did that.

3) Ineffective system for removing the dangerously mentally ill from society at large.

Follows #2. If the dangerously insane can be identified early, they can be (temporarily) removed from public exposure, and potentially treated.

I haven't kept up with the news - but was he identified as _dangerously insane_? (Since mental illness and therapy covers all sorts of things, most of which have nothing to do with either being dangerous, or being insane).

Right now, the mentally ill have so many rights,

Let me fix that sentence for you:

"Right now, people have so many rights".

Yes, it's a shame, unless you commit a crime you can't be locked up against your will.

The common thread I see in all these newsworthy cases is that all of them were identified long ago as being dangerous but next to nothing was done about it.

Unfortunately people only ever look at this backwards. The question is not "How many killers had property X?" (whether X is being mentally ill, or say, eating carrots), it's "How many with property X go onto kill?"

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

I haven't kept up with the news - but was he identified as _dangerously insane_? (Since mental illness and therapy covers all sorts of things, most of which have nothing to do with either being dangerous, or being insane).

He was identified as being a danger to himself and detained. He underwent a psych eval and told to undergo treatment as an outpatient, although no treatment was ever performed. That's an example of ineffective psychiatric referral that I'm talking about.

Let me fix that sentence for you:

"Right now, people have so many rights".

Yes, it's a shame, unless you commit a crime you can't be locked up against your will.

Yes you can. You can be committed.

Unfortunately people only ever look at this backwards. The question is not "How many killers had property X?" (whether X is being mentally ill, or say, eating carrots), it's "How many with property X go onto kill?"

I already pointed out that Cho was identified as a danger to himself in 2005. What part of this do you fail to understand?

 

[azzaman333]

I think all mentally ill people should be locked up.

So 1 in 5 people should be locked up just because they happened to have depression? I think you didn't think that through too well...

 

[Kozmos]

They should make a questionare for sadism. I checked myself and I score about 80% on it's symptoms .

 

[warpus]

Force anyone who wants to own a gun to undergo an annual psychological evaluation.

 

[useless]

give guns to everyone. then wait. that should help.

 

[mdwh]

He was identified as being a danger to himself and detained. He underwent a psych eval and told to undergo treatment as an outpatient, although no treatment was ever performed. That's an example of ineffective psychiatric referral that I'm talking about.

I already pointed out that Cho was identified as a danger to himself in 2005. What part of this do you fail to understand?

Does being a danger to youself imply being a danger to others, then?

I'm not sure what your solution is - should everyone who is ever sectioned be put under life imprisonment, in case they commit a crime?

 

[mdwh]

I think all mentally ill people should be locked up.

Well exhibiting symptoms of wanting power of people seems rather mentally unbalanced in my opinion, so I think you should be locked up.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Does being a danger to youself imply being a danger to others, then?

I'm not sure what your solution is - should everyone who is ever sectioned be put under life imprisonment, in case they commit a crime?

You obviously paid no attention to my previous post. I explained that there is no effective system for referring the (dangerously) mentally ill for treatment. You are simply told you need help, and it's up to you to get it if you like. If you don't get it, no one will be the wiser. Btw, it's not like this treatment is free. Getting psych treatment, including medication, costs money that the state isn't willing to spend. Being a danger to oneself is still danger, and if a person cares nothing for his own life, he's unlikely to care for others' either. It's already legal to detain someone for being a danger to themselves so it's not like this is a stretch.

Instead of simply telling a psycho that he needs help, how about actually making the ones identified as a danger to themselves or others get it?

 

[CaptainF]

It's all intuitive.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

What should we do to identify the psychos

Trace the IP addresses of anyone who logs on to CFC regularly.

 

[b etor]

......

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Force anyone who wants to own a gun to undergo an annual psychological evaluation.

That would be VERY expensive... unless of course you reduced gun ownership to a very small percentage of the population.