Attorney Paul Pfingst said Thursday: “My client has a history of depression and has been undergoing treatment for some time.”
Before we talk about Mr. Pfingst’s client, let’s talk about the fact that for decades, liberals have tried to convince us that the mentally ill are victims of society’s unfair prejudice. If only we were more compassionate and understanding, liberals say, we could alleviate the suffering of these pathetic nutcases.
Yet these pleas for compassion and understanding have an effect of blinding us to the fact that mentally ill people may pose genuine risks to public safety. Think about the Creepy Little Weirdo who committed the Sandy Hook massacre. Think about the Creepy Little Weirdo who committed the Isla Vista massacre. It was after Gus Deeds stabbed his father, Virginia state Sen. Creigh Deeds, in November 2013, that I put it bluntly: Crazy People Are Dangerous. And since then we have seen numerous stories that confirm this basic truth, including the German co-pilot who killed 150 people when he crashed a plane into a mountain.
Every time we see this kind of story — the murderous lunatic with a known history of mental illness — the media goes into hand-wringing mode, reporting on the “warning signs” that were overlooked before the kook committed his atrocity, yet at the same time striving not to stigmatize the mentally ill. It’s important not to hurt the delicate self-esteem of the deranged, the demented and the disturbed, you see, and then one day we see the headlines about Paul Pfingst’s client:
Police in Southern California say the son of a San Diego Padres minority owner attempted to kidnap a 7-year-old girl at an elementary school last week.
Jack Doshay, 22, was arrested late Wednesday night by the San Diego County Sheriff’s Office and charged with kidnapping, false imprisonment with violence and child cruelty.
Doshay’s father, Glenn Doshay, is a philanthropist and former investment manager who maintained his minority stake in the Padres after the franchise was sold to a new ownership group in 2012. Sheriff Bill Gore said at a news conference that Jack Doshay has been living with his parents.
The San Diego Union-Tribune has more on Jack Doshay’s arrest:
The arrest of Doshay came nine days after the brazen and violent midday incident on March 23 at Skyline Elementary that put the Solana Beach community, particularly parents of young children, on heightened alert.
According to sheriff’s officials and the girl’s parents, the intruder on campus lured the girl to the back of the school through a tree-lined courtyard, then tried to wrap packing tape around her head, and was attempting to pick her up when she kicked and screamed, alerting teachers. . . .
Jack Doshay’s lawyer, Paul Pfingst, helped coordinate his client’s arrest and said he’s suffering from depression.
“My client has a history of depression and has been undergoing treatment for some time,” Pfingst said in a telephone interview with the Union-Tribune on Thursday.
Oh, he was undergoing treatment before he tried to kidnap a 7-year-old girl. Guess the treatment didn’t work out so well, huh? Perhaps this Creepy Little Weirdo can get effective help with his “suffering” after they convict him and send him to state prison.
Here’s an idea: Crazy people are dangerous. Maybe we should try locking up more of these lunatics before they hurt somebody.
And if only your dog hadn’t been bitten by that rabid skunk, you and your four children wouldn’t be in danger of getting rabies — but it’s not the dog’s fault so don’t you shoot him!
Blistering blue blazes, Mr. McCain, would you please stop blaming everyone in a category just because they share the same label?
Technically alcoholics are mentally ill. Most of them aren’t any danger to themselves or others even if they do drink. I’m sure I could come up with twenty other mental disorders that also don’t pose any threat if I looked.
Please stop blaming all the individuals for the actions of some who share the same category.
Tough problem. I suspect that there are plenty of people who suffer from mental illness – depression, bipolar disorder, and even more serious disorders – who are not at all dangerous to anybody but (perhaps) themselves. How do we separate the truly dangerous from the merely troubled?
The danger lies, of course, in government abuse. I make no doubt that there are PLENTY of people who would love for the government to be able to punish “crazy” people by, for example, depriving them of the right to bear arms.
What to do? Is an airline pilot who takes Zoloft because he’s going through a nasty divorce to be grounded, perhaps permanently? Is the person who had a nervous breakdown ten years ago to be denied a concealed carry permit? And what is due process for any of this?
What to do?
There is much in what you say. Throw in that the headshrinkers seems constantly finding new “disorders” to excuse weird or undesirable behavior (I am aware of a deadbeat who’s on permanent disability due to PTSD from having IBS in high school).
There ARE truly dangerous loonies, and we neec to keep them under control. There are also people who are “sick” but DON’T need to be locked up.
As I write in my own comment, what to do?
How do we separate the truly dangerous from the merely troubled?
Here’s an idea: Start locking up more lunatics. Jack Doshay was “in treatment” on an outpatient basis. Were his problems bad enough he could have been committed to a psych ward? I don’t know, but maybe we should do something about the dangerous mythology of harmlessness — the Lunatic as Victim — that makes it so difficult to get them locked up.
Alcoholics aren’t mentally ill.
Its not so much what you/they define as crazy as what you/they define as dangerous that is the tricky part. We’d probably save a lot more lives by locking up some crazy legislators than an equal number of crazy killers. Not that I have anything against locking up both types.
Aside from taking the word of the defense attorney who’s desperately trying come up with something–anything–to mitigate his client’s sentence, we know very little about this situation other than the allegations. I’m perfectly willing to stipulate that child abductors have mental problems. It is fallacious to assert, however, that all persons with a history of depression are a) “crazy/insane” and b) dangerous.
I think we, as a society, make excuses for our inaction. The case of Tidwell Middle School in Texas comes to mind. A kid writes a story of killing his classmates in graphic detail. Sexually assaulting the girls etc and the school says its hands are tied because he didn’t write it on school property. The DA says he won’t charge the student for his fiction. Well he used his classmate’s real names but I guess it’s still fiction until he actually kills someone.The villagers are coming up the path to the castle torches in hand while Dr. Frankenstein continues to defend the monster he knows to be dangerous.
Like someone pulling a gun on you. You don’t know if it’s loaded until it goes off. So you would be in the wrong if you shot first?
In that instance shooting first would be good manners.
It used to be as a society most people could recognize the mentally ill. But in today’s milieu it is the deranged who run things and normal is now seen as “crazy” expect more atrocities
Alas, Stacey, your response begs the question. Who is a “lunatic?” The standard is whether someone is exhibiting behaviors indicating s/he is a danger to himself/herself or others. Involuntary commitments are difficult to obtain because in this country people are not confined before they commit a criminal act. It’s a matter of due process.
You have been quite vocal–rightfully so–on the due process travesties occasioned by the campus rape mythos. You can’t have it both ways: due process for male college students but none for people with emotional or mental problems. Due process is messy sometimes but it is a necessary part of living in a free republic such as ours.
There is no way even acute depression is a defense in this case. If he has an illness that is indicative of his behavior depression isn’t it.
Your article doesn’t mention the other part of the problem: the over prescribing of antipsychotic and antidepressant drugs, which played a major part in this. Often today, drugs are the only thing offered to people suffering from mental illnesses because most insurance plans will cover drugs up the ying yang but are very limited in their coverage of other therapies such as talk therapy and nutritional therapy. So often there is no other professional to stay involved in the person’s life to help keep tabs on them.
I’m not sure how your comment is pertinent or responsive to mine. Pulling a gun on someone is an assault by definition which allows self-defense. Your analogy doesn’t apply to the situation under discussion.
Problems (and please understand that I, too, want dangerous loonies off the street):
1. How do we define “dangerous lunatic”? My very limited grasp of psychology is that there aren’t any cut-and-dried, universal rules for this. Also, the person who’s just “troubled” today may go totally off the reservation tomorrow… or not.
I am reminded of “The Caine Mutiny” and the question of Queeg’s illness. One psychologist testified that everybody is “sick”: some people just aren’t well-adjusted.
2. What is the due process for locking somebody up or forcing medication or other treatments on him? Does this go before a jury? Or is a bit of paper from a headshrinker sufficient?
I honestly don’t know the answers. Perhaps we’ve had a good system that lefties (notably Jimmuh) ruined with their “compassion”. I don’t know, but it seems to me that there’s a lot of ambiguity and potential for government abuse
It’s also worthy to remember that there are prominent intellectuals, e.g. Richard Dawkins, who believe that my attendance this morning at sunrise Easter service is evidence that I am delusional and that my rearing my children in a Christian home constitutes child abuse. Given what’s happened recently to my co-religionists who’ve attempted to peacefully exercise their religion only to be accused of “hate crimes,” I become very wary of any movement to declare people “dangerous,” in order to bring the full weight of state judgment down upon them.
I think the AMA regards alcoholism as a disease.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GL2T5VEnXMo/VSHN9JeZN9I/AAAAAAAAtJ0/4t7zNsZ25-U/s1600/Screen%2BShot%2B2015-04-05%2Bat%2B5.05.27%2BPM.png
Exactly so.
An interested party may file a petition alleging specific behaviors on the part of the respondent (alleged lunatic, if you will) which demonstrate a danger to himself or others. If the allegations are sufficient, a judge may order an involuntary commitment for purposes of an examination by a psychiatrist for up to 96 hours. If, then, the psychiatrist a) makes a specific medical and psychiatric diagnosis and b) agrees that the respondent is dangerous, the confinement may continue for periods of 90 days with further hearings. It is judge-tried, but the person is afforded counsel.
go to the CDC (centers for disease control)
and check out how many LGBT types get AIDS each year
– like 50,000 and more
And people worry about gluten !
maybe they ought to worry about something that is fatal.
Instead – courts impose fines on Christians.
It’s is about potential. Not everyone who suffers depression is dangerous but the potential danger to others must also be considered. But then when they show signs of being crazy it is irresponsible to allow them to go about unsupervised.
A rational society identifies the criminally insane by the fact they have committed a crime because they were insane, and confines them for the public safety.
An irrational society redefines crime, endlessly debates the meaning of insanity, and puts the criminally insane in positions of power.
Thanks I saw that too. Jack is suffering from more than depression. And would represent a danger to everyone if allowed to go free.
You do realise, of course, that the US already has, by far, the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world, right?
Thanks for that info.
I think we can also stipulate that we’re not talking about those lovable misfits from One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest.
They’re wrong
It’s a bit difficult to get people to go to therapy, or to know if they’ve got a good therapist who is doing them any good. Taking a pill requires the voluntary cooperation of taking the pill every day (which doesn’t always happen) but other sorts of treatment require a great deal more participation. A patient has to go and has to say… *this* is what I want. Unless what they *want* is to actually address their problem, there isn’t much of anything that a therapist can do.
“Potential” is word which has no meaning in the context of due process. Everyone has some “potential” to do something horrific, even if that potential is minuscule. And it’s minuscule for the vast majority of people who have some mental or emotional problems.
You say, “when they show signs . . . ” Sure. But that’s the problem. What signs? There are procedures in place for psychiatrists and psychologists to facilitate involuntary commitments. Merely being under “treatment” for diagnosis is not a sign. It is a condition. As I mention in my comment to RSM, we don’t normally lock people up before they commit a criminal act, whether because they are evil or because they have diminished capacity due to mental illness. Due process requires a strict standard for a reason. Simply put, the State can always find a reason to restrict the individual’s freedom.
Cases like one under discussion are those which people use to expand the powers of the State. There’s a reason “Liberty” is one of the enumerated Creator-endowed “unalienable rights.” As I wrote elsewhere on this thread. If we really mean what we say about personal liberty and freedom without intrusive interference from the state, we must be willing to accept the good and bad which comes with that position.
I had thought it was relatively uncontroversial that some people are physically primed for alcoholism while others aren’t. Not mentally ill at all, but physically prone to it. I know more than one person who had a binge episode once while young and decided that if they started drinking that they’d never stop, so they chose not to tempt that particular demon.
But we don’t actually have a good system for VOLUNTARY commitment. There are lots of people who don’t need a hospital. They don’t need a psych ward. But they really do need something structured and secure.
The defense of diminished capacity in a criminal case is different than civil involuntary commitments. An involuntary commitment or a diagnosis of mental disease or defect is not necessarily defense to a criminal charge. For a mental disease or defect to be a criminal defense, it must prevent the defendant from forming the requisite mental state for the crime, i.e. appreciating the nature of one’s conduct (the what) and knowing it is wrong (the why.) The criminal defense is very hard to prove, TV movies notwithstanding, and even if a defendant is successful, they normally are committed civilly for a period of many years.
I’m not sure what you mean. Since the Clinton Administration, voluntary psychological treatment is required to be covered by health insurance, including stays in structured facilities. A person who seeks treatment of whatever nature can generally get it.
If you’re averring that people can leave “voluntary” treatment, the answer is “sure.” That’s why it’s voluntary. The moment such treatment is forced by another party, the due process requirements obtain. That’s the nature of the beast and there’s no way around it.
They might not need to be locked up, but they might well benefit from being in a structured environment where their reaction to meds can be monitored. Somewhere along the line we decided that institutions were bad, but the alternative seems to be to leave families to try to deal with family members who are mentally ill in their homes, which has got to be isolating for the ill person even more than an institution would be.
What was deemed “bad” were state institutions for those may not have needed them. There are myriads of programs and facilities of varying degrees of structure available for people who want them.
What I mean is… we have stuff set up for someone who is having a break down or a crisis, but we have very little for long term living situations for people who are good on their meds and more or less stable but not quite able to cope with the particular chaos that is modern life.
I’ll add… we have situations like that for people with physical or developmental disabilities. The problem with group-homes in neighborhoods for people with mental issues is no one wants them there.
Really? They do a craptastic job of advertising then.
What then is the solution? Something is either voluntary or it is not. If such a person you describes decides to leave such a facility or environment, what then? You cannot commit someone on the off chance that a) they won’t take their meds and b) will become dangerous to others or themselves as a result. N.B. if item “b” was in play to begin with, their admission would support an involuntary commitment.
In my metro area, I know if at least a dozen, excluding hospitals and state facilities.
Yes! But don’t stop there. Why just lock up lunatics because they’re dangerous and not lock up other dangerous people, like blacks. And homosexuals. And alcoholics and drug users. And men — 99.999% of all forcible (rather than statutory) rapes are committed by men. And the retarded. And the autistic (creepy little weirdos).
Better yet, let’s have a law to lock up all the crazies, and then define voting Democrat as a mental illness. Bing, Bang, Boom, … done.
Just like black neighborhoods and gay “districts”.
Moby.
Wombatice veni foras!
Um, … thank you?
Speaking of Easter, and of the inherent dangerousness of lunatics and blacks and homosexuals and men; don’t even get me started on the JOOOS!
McCain IS a Jewish name isn’t it?
It must be. Surely no believer in Christ would call for the institution of an American “Project T4” …. on Easter Sunday.
Would they?
Military service? Countless dissolute, disaffected young men (and more than a few women) have been completely turned around by serving… They do make it rather difficult to get in, though, these days! Pity, that…
Quiting drinking is easy, all you have to do is quit.
Oh, how could I forget to mention the other group of dangers to society that’s been getting my goat lately: ……
….
Pilots!
Murderous bastards, … all of ’em.