Jun 1, 2022·edited Jun 1, 2022Liked by The Coop Scoop
Excellent piece. As a clinical psychologist most salient for me is this ludicrous notion that "mental illness" somehow excuses people from criminal fallibility--a rather large subject in itself. The non compos mentis defense emerged in the mid-17th century to protect those thought to be "mad" and therefore innocent because of their lack of judgment. However, as you suggest, criminality and psychological disturbance are not at all mutually exclusive categories. It is arguable that anyone who engages in acts of violence is unequivocally tinged with mental illness (a term I use only for its convenience). Alienation breeds violence. Social alienation breeds violence. The problem is that the origins of the non compos mentis defense are secular, and no one wants to revert to the opposing position of chalking up the deed to "sin." Not to open a can of worms, but many people consider it fine to attribute suicide to "mental illness"--why wouldn't the same apply for its obverse, "homcide"? It's a similar impulse, a desperate act of violence, just aimed in the opposite direction. In other words, people who are psychologically healthy do not kill other people.
I've been saying much the same as what you've written. I struggle a bit with the 'mental health' issue. I agree with what Viktoria wrote. I've read in China dissidents are considered mentally ill. Where does one draw the line? If someone has suffered from depression and suicide ideation but is in therapy and receiving medication should they be barred from owning a gun? If mental health is going to be one of the criteria, some thought needs to be put into what that exactly means.
Marc, thanks. somehow we keep ignoring the embedded base of weapons, and owners. the right and left get equal mileage about the same marginal issues and let the mainstream sneak past them.
Fantastic piece, Mark. Sometimes it seems as though you’re one of the few sane voices left out there. The only thing I would add to your dystopic portrait of a society in free fall is the fact that nothing else really matters, not gun control or mental health or affordable college or odious oligarchs or racism or sexism or the violent, rapacious American empire, if we don’t somehow manage to deal with the approaching tsunami of climate catastrophe that’s about to obliterate everything.
Excellent piece. As a clinical psychologist most salient for me is this ludicrous notion that "mental illness" somehow excuses people from criminal fallibility--a rather large subject in itself. The non compos mentis defense emerged in the mid-17th century to protect those thought to be "mad" and therefore innocent because of their lack of judgment. However, as you suggest, criminality and psychological disturbance are not at all mutually exclusive categories. It is arguable that anyone who engages in acts of violence is unequivocally tinged with mental illness (a term I use only for its convenience). Alienation breeds violence. Social alienation breeds violence. The problem is that the origins of the non compos mentis defense are secular, and no one wants to revert to the opposing position of chalking up the deed to "sin." Not to open a can of worms, but many people consider it fine to attribute suicide to "mental illness"--why wouldn't the same apply for its obverse, "homcide"? It's a similar impulse, a desperate act of violence, just aimed in the opposite direction. In other words, people who are psychologically healthy do not kill other people.
I've been saying much the same as what you've written. I struggle a bit with the 'mental health' issue. I agree with what Viktoria wrote. I've read in China dissidents are considered mentally ill. Where does one draw the line? If someone has suffered from depression and suicide ideation but is in therapy and receiving medication should they be barred from owning a gun? If mental health is going to be one of the criteria, some thought needs to be put into what that exactly means.
Marc, thanks. somehow we keep ignoring the embedded base of weapons, and owners. the right and left get equal mileage about the same marginal issues and let the mainstream sneak past them.
So for those who mostly avoid punditry, could you name a few of your more obvious pundits? Give me a hint. Is Shawn Hannity one?
Fantastic piece, Mark. Sometimes it seems as though you’re one of the few sane voices left out there. The only thing I would add to your dystopic portrait of a society in free fall is the fact that nothing else really matters, not gun control or mental health or affordable college or odious oligarchs or racism or sexism or the violent, rapacious American empire, if we don’t somehow manage to deal with the approaching tsunami of climate catastrophe that’s about to obliterate everything.
Web url for the Sifry piece (link in the text goes to gmail): https://theconnector.substack.com/p/and-we-are-not-saved
Thank you Marc for always being insightful and on target (no pun intended).