|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
David Cohen
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Ripper Suspects:
David Cohen
Author: David Jetson
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 09:36 am |        | I think it's been argued enough: the LEGAL definition of insanity is very narrow and precise, while the MEDICAL definition is wide and imprecise.
To be LEGALLY insane, one must be incapable of telling right from wrong.
To be MEDICALLY insane, well, is whatever a psychiatrist says it is.
The crimes of Jack the Ripper indicate he was insane in the sense that a psychiatrist would use the word. Medically insane.
Personally, I'd far rather take the word of doctor than a lawyer about medical issues. I don't go to a lawyer when I'm feeling unwell.
So let's just stick with what the experts say. If anyone can find a psychiatrist with experience of the criminally insane who says the Jack was not insane, then we have the basis for an arguement.
As this will not happen, let's agree that Jack was obviously crazy but MAY OR MAY NOT have been considered LEGALLY INSANE, which is what I started out saying anyway. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 10:05 am | | Hi David,
You are correct - most here are addressing medical insanity. The only one I believe addressing legal insanity, which is a different definition, is Dan.
Dan, I stand behind what I said both legally and clinically:
"its hard for me to understand how one could believe one way or another about the killer's insanity without knowing who he was and what his mental state was at the time of the killings."
Let us accept the most narrow definition of insanity that you keep bringing up : knowing the difference between right and wrong.
How do you know that the killer knew the difference between right and wrong? My point is that certainly without examining the killer we have no idea what his mental state was.
Because the killer sought to evade capture does not mean that he necessarily knew the difference between right and wrong.
For example, a killer may know that murdering prostitutes is illegal. Yet, he may also say that he hears voices from God that commands him to slaughter women. Under that circumstance, the killer could be found legally insane.
Remember, John Hinkley shot a President of the United States, and all along stated that he knew what he had done was illegal. Yet, he was found insane because a jury was convinced that his mental illness had led him to the conclusion that the best way to get a girlfriend (Jodie Foster) was to shoot a president (re-enacting the events of a movie he had seen over 100 times, "Taxi Driver").
Regards,
Rich |
Author: David Radka
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 01:09 pm | | There is no such thing as mental illness. No human being has ever been mentally ill. The human mind is incapable of illness--all it is is the human mind, it's not like a pancreas or a thyroid gland that can become diseased. The term "mentally ill" is a pejorative label society affixes to whomever it wants to label, blame, stigmatize and punish without any specific wrongdoing having been done by the subject, or any further ado. Society has given itself the legal right to involuntarily institutionalize the "mentally ill"--that's why the term exists. Society creates the phantom "the mentally ill" in order to give it something to hang its hat on, in effect, in order to provide something for itself to feel afraid of. By taking this measure, it feels less afraid than it would if it didn't have anything tangible right in front of it of which to feel afraid. The "mentally ill" today occupy the same slot in society that witches used to--neither ever existed. When witches stopped existing in societal parlance, the "mentally ill" started existing.
Society regularly creates perceived deviant classes of people to label, blame, stigmatize and punish, the "mentally ill" is merely one of them. Jews were treated as such by the Nazis; Kosovan Albanians by the Serbs; witches, and so on.
David |
Author: Dan Norder
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 07:41 pm | | Some of you still don't get it. Medical professionals and psychologists use the legal definition of "insane." The medical definition *is* the legal definition.
Anyone who takes classes to prepare themselves to become a psychiatrist or psychologist has that drummed into their heads. Hell, even people who have ever taken an Intro to Psych class should have learned that.
There *is no* "medical" definition of the term other than the legal definition, and anyone who makes one up, whether they be a psychiatrist or not, is not using the term as the entire rest of the profession uses it.
If you are using a defnition other than the legal one you are using the WRONG definition. PERIOD.
Go look it up. Talk to some psychologists, they'll all explain it to you... well, other than one who admits* she is using her own definition and claims that *everyone else in the world* is wrong, like the doctor David Jetson quoted.
There are two definitions for insane -- the correct one, which is the legal AND medical one, and the incorrect one, which means whatever the person using it wants it to mean at the time they say it.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation* |
Author: Howard Brown
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 10:05 pm | | | Radka....Prior to this post,I was just busting your balls and laughing at it while doing so. Your posts were so obtuse,so silly,that I thought by busting your chops,maybe you would cease the nonsense. The A.R. stuff...the misogynist comments...the personal slights. But after reading your post above,I truly and I mean for real,feel that,Dave,you need help. Mental illness is a reality. For your sake,I hope you can see that. This isn't a slap,Radka,I mean it. To deny that there is NO mental illness is to deny reality. At times,I had thought you posted things of this sort to attract attention. Right now,Dave,I'm not so sure. I wish you would write down your post above and give it to one of your neighbors or friends and ask them if it has any degree of veracity. For real,Dave. Enough is enough. Time for a tune up. Time for a re-evaluation of all things Radka. Time to touch base with the rest of us....Funny,ain't it ? Here I am,always on the prowl for your posts,trying to help you ! Go ahead,Dave....Ask any of your friends or neighbors if mental illness is just a perception....HB |
Author: David Radka
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 10:34 pm | | What about the witches? They disappeared at exactly the same time that "mental illness" appeared. Explain, please. People used to believe as wholeheartedly in witches as they now do in "mental illness." All society did was update its labels, freeing those ugly old ladies from pariah status, and roping people with personal problems in. Today's troubled individual is yesterday's witch.
If someone says he is God, he is not "mentally ill." He is instead boasting. He may have a problem in living, and need counselling. But when we say his mind is diseased, we take away from him the right to defend himself, since he can't prove his mind is not diseased. The mind is not like a brain, or a liver; it doesn't really exist, that's why. The mind is really all in the mind. Why can't people see this? I can see it. Grant human beings the dignity of being human, please.
If a slave runs away from his master, is he "mentally ill?" I think not, he is instead free.
David |
Author: Howard Brown
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 11:00 pm | | | Radka....take a walk up and down the Main Street of,lets say, Newington,Ct.at 4:30 A.M.,by the 7-11...........Are these poor people not mentally troubled? You,Radka,could one day be one of these poor unfortunates. I'm here to help,buddy |
Author: Sir Robert Anderson
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 11:20 pm | | Hey Julie,
I think I'll let John Douglas speak for me with respect to what the scene at 13 Miller's Court tells us about the mental state of JtR:
"....high degree of psychopathology exhibited at the scenes.....(the) MJK kill certainly strikes me as the work of a guy pretty much at the end of his mental rope....(he) might not be able to continue functioning on his own much longer..."
from "The Cases That Haunt Us" |
Author: Diana
Tuesday, 14 January 2003 - 08:48 am | | | I am a Special Education teacher. I deal with autistic, bipolar, and just plain emotionally disturbed kids every day. When someone has never learned to talk, when they pull your hair out by the roots because they're mad (not necessarily mad at you, just mad and you're handy). When somebody goes berserk every time theres a schedule change and bangs their head on the floor, screaming because they can't tolerate disruption of any kind, when a child's only method of getting attention or affection is to deliberately scream horrible insults at the nearest adult, then they need help. I don't care what kind of label you want to put on it. Probably mentally ill is kinder than "crazy" which is kinder than "demon possessed". I think eventually an organic cause will be found for most of these problems. I also believe that the day we label everyone who thinks outside the box as disturbed is the day we have a problem. People have to have a right to be unconventional or different. Otherwise society will never grow. Occasionaly the oddball is the one who is right. |
Author: David Jetson
Tuesday, 14 January 2003 - 09:28 am | | I fully agree with all that Diana says. But I also stand by what I originally said which is that Jack the Ripper was clearly insane.
I'm not talking about "thinking outside the box" or being eccentric or being a dropout from society. I'm talking about gruesomely murdering 5 people, almost definately strangers, for no reason at all. No-one would do what was done to these women if it was some kind of hit. Those crimes were done by somebody who was clearly insane.
I'm not talking about "legal insanity" or any other legal construct, I'm talking about the inabilty to follow BIOLOGICAL rules. To kill 5 (or whatever number you accept) strangers for no reason is utterly insane.
I do think there were biological things wrong with Jack, whether from a birth defect, aqquired brain injury, a brain tumor, or a serious imbalance of brain chemistry.
I'm fully in favour of oddballs and eccentrics - I definately count as one - but certain forms of behavior go way past eccentricity into the realm of the insane. I think if we're talking about gruesome murders for pleasure then we're talking about insanity.
I've dealt with some pretty disturbed individuals at times, and I know for a fact that some very messed-up people, some people that really NEED treatment, can and DO pass for "normal" almost all of the time. I have had dealings with a couple of people that should be locked up for the good of society, and so far haven't been because they haven't demonstrated their insanity in a way that will get them locked up... yet. I think Jack was clearly in that category. Not obviously insane, but subtly insane. The kind of insane that knows how to pass for normal but isn't.
Insanity isn't eccentricity, it's being DANGEROUS to oneself or others. I have a lot of sympathy for the disturbed, but I have a lot of sympathy for their victims, too. People who are physically dangerous to innocent folks need treatment, and the rest of us need to be kept safe from their insane acts. |
Author: David Jetson
Tuesday, 14 January 2003 - 09:37 am | | I should probably explain a little more of what I was talking about in the post above: I was recently the victim of a seriously disturbed and aggressive individual who had convinced himself - with no reason at all - that I am evil.
This was a former friend who I hadn't seen for many years, who had fried his brain with drugs and booze in the intervening decade. I don't really want to talk about this here, but I can assure you that when I showed people (including the Police) the crazed death threats I was getting in the mail, they were impressed by the complete lack of sanity displayed therein. Real insanity is frightening. It's hard to define, but I promise you, you'll know it if you see it. |
Author: Billy Markland
Tuesday, 14 January 2003 - 09:50 am | | David, I think I see where you are going with your thesis, and I will admit, it is interesting (my, that is scary).
If I understand correctly, your postulation is that since there is no organic mind as such, there can be no illness of it. My correlation is the term "horse power" used in automobile engines. Are there actually horses under your car hood? Of course not, it is the term used to denote the sum of purely physical occurences (valves, block, etc). The brain is the organic component which integrates physical messages from various nerves. But then something magical happens, "awareness" occurs. That separates us from computers.
Remember the old programmer's litany: "Garbage in, garbage out" and you have your answer.
Sorry about the unfocused and somewhat rambling nature of this response. The old synapis' (WHERE is my dictionary!) need a little more stimuli from caffine to think too deeply this morning.
Best,
Billy |
Author: David Radka
Tuesday, 14 January 2003 - 11:30 am | | Billy,
You are correct. To read more about this kind of position, just enter "Szasz" into your search engine. Dr. Thomas Szasz was a renowned psychiatrist, although quite iconclastic, who first championed it.
David |
Author: julienonperson
Tuesday, 14 January 2003 - 12:49 pm | | Sir Robert,
You are basically agreeing with my opinion, with respect to JtR Mental state. I am quite familiar with John Douglas and his books as well as other well-known profilers.
Thank you for the feedback.
julie |
Author: Howard Brown
Tuesday, 14 January 2003 - 04:31 pm | | | Radka: No such thing as mental illness? Is this something akin to Nietzsche's superman theory,but this time,brain disease and not morality are in question? In other words,to you and this Hunky quack( thats okay...I'm a Hunky too. Im allowed...),believe that unlike the lungs,kidneys,or the liver which do get diseased and cease to function,the brain,made out of the same proverbial cloth as the other organs is somehow free of being "ill".......You gotta explain this one. I know there is nothing to explain about your "A-R" ,but this time you have this Bohunk Szasz' theory to quote from....Lets go,Radka.......toe to toe.....You get first shot: Hit me Daddy ! |
Author: Dan Norder
Tuesday, 14 January 2003 - 06:01 pm | | David Jetson,
You make your point well and good that *something* was wrong with Jack, though whether it was mental illness or just immorality is another thing entirely. You do your argument a major disservice by insisting on mislabeling whatever you are trying to explain as "insanity." You keep talking about how you mean the term like medical professionals use and not how lawyers use it, but medical professionals and psychologist use the exact same definiton as the lawyers, as has already been pointed out by myself and by Rich.
As far as Jack supposedly having to be "insane" (I'll assume you mean "metally ill" as that's really what you are describing every time you say "insane") because of what he did being a so against the norms of society or laws, that just doesn't apply. Any definition that depends upon the laws of society to try to figure out mental pathology is flawed, because societies can and do have wildly varying laws and ethical standards.
To take a modern example, some Southern US state (I believe Texas) has outlawed vibrators and dildoes because the lawmakers consider using them a moral abberation. So if some woman gets one delivered to her anyway, does that make her mentally ill or just choosing to disobey the law?
OK< so then yoiu say, well, that's nothing like murder and mutilation. Fine, what about all the different cultures in which murder and mutilation were not just accepted but an important part of their society? When the Aztecs or any other group made blood sacrafices, were they mentally ill or just fitting in? When an torturer or executioner kills, are they mentally ill?
Sloppy definitions (especially knowingly ignoring accepted defintions to come up with your own) are complete wastes of time, as they don't say anything. You argue one thing, I argue another, and the two are mostly in agreement but it looks like a complete and total disagreement simply because you are making up your own definitons for terms as you go along.
There are very specific criteria used for determining mental illness (which is why the DSM IV is so thick) and insanity. You can't just suddenly declare someone as mentally ill or insane without meeting that evidence. We don't have that evidence for Jack, and the evidence we do have points away from any sort of illness that impaired mental functioning.
Perhaps you'd be better off using the word "looney" when making your arguments. That's a nice broad word that doesn't have a conflicting meaning from what you intend.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: David Radka
Tuesday, 14 January 2003 - 07:13 pm | | What is "mental illness?"
Can anyone define this condition, please?
Thank you.
David |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 14 January 2003 - 07:34 pm | | Hi David,
At one time, the American Psychiatric Association recognized the term "insanity" as a mental illness. It does not today. Nonetheless, many psychologists still use the term because they feel the APA was bowing to political pressure with regard to criminal sentencing.
Nonetheless, as you know, the question of the killer's mental illness and how it relates to David Cohen as a suspect is an important question.
The medical experts of the period though Cohen to be mentally ill. Some today think that makes him a more likely suspect if Jack the Ripper was mentally ill.
But was he?
It is certainly a debatable point (as you can see on these boards). I am no qualified to determine if Jack the Ripper was insane or not. All I can do is report what the experts think.
The authorities I have read agree with your opinion. Profilers Ressler and Douglas have written of their belief that the killer was mentally ill. Psychologists with expertise in studying serial killers, Sam Vakim and David Canter, both came to the conclusion that the killer was mentally ill.
I am unaware of any profiler or psychologist who disagrees with your opinion.
This does not mean that all the authorities are correct - for there are circumstances we are all familiar with in which consensus opinion proved wrong.
Psychology is always contentious.
Some people believe that questions about those who commit vicious crimes revolve almost exclusively about character - that the person doing the dastardly acts is inately evil.
Others, of course, believe that people are conditioned by events or programmed biologically.
The positions people take on these issues, to me at least, reveals more about the person's attitudes and way of thinking than the merits of the arguments themselves.
I am not ashamed to admit that I have not sorted through what I believe about these matters. But I try to keep an open mind.
My view is that Jack the Ripper was probably mentally ill - but the information we have to make a determinative finding is inadequate.
But, again, your position has merit. Thanks for an interesting and sensible post.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Howard Brown
Tuesday, 14 January 2003 - 11:47 pm | | | Radka........mental illness is what those poor unfortunates that I see every morning,when I go to the 7-11 to get cigarettes and coffee,before work,have...the poor people who talk to themselves...who pee their pants....who go through trash cans for whatever they are looking for. Its not a joke. Your question is a joke. You are a joke. You know what mental illness is. Whether there is some yo-yo in a lab coat to define it for you or I is irrelevant. Thats mental illness. The inability to control oneself. The lack of control by a person for their actions.Sort of like how you post here with your references to lesbians and the other outer space stuff you come up with...... |
Author: David Jetson
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 02:39 am | | Sorry, I was actually a wee bit drunk last night when I posted. I was trying to say that what I personally see as mental illness is definately real, and when seen up close it's scary. I do believe that it's caused by brain malfunction, so what I call "mental illness" or at its worst "insanity" is actually a physical illness, in that the brain is a part of the body, and when the brain is sick or damaged, it interferes with the processes of thought.
To me, there's nothing evil about mental illness, and I use the term "insane" as a way of describing the behavior of a person whose mental capacities are damaged enough, in a particular way, to make them harmful to the rest of us.
It's been shown that damage to the frontal lobes of the brain can cause aggressive and violent behavior in humans. It can turn a harmless person into a raging lunatic.
The human brain is extrememly complex and not well understood, but from the reading I've done it seems to me pretty likely that the sort of behavior that we see in Jack the Ripper is very comparable to that of many of the serial killers we DO know about and who have been studied, whose behaviors can be shown to be related to brain disease or injury.
I'm not saying ALL serial killers are insane or brain damaged, because we don't know. I am saying that in the majority of those who have been studied there has been hard evidence of brain disfunction, due to either head injuries, disease, or a chemical imbalance.
That's proven. My personal opinion is that ALL of them are sick, all of them have malfunctioning brains, and that medical science hasn't yet discovered all of the subtle causes of mental illness.
Mental illness, like other illnesses, does tend to get worse if untreated, so I think that saying Jack was likely to have been intensifying his crimes because he was "getting crazier" is a fair statement. If it doesn't get worse, it stays the same: it sure doesn't get better by itself.
I'm not saying there is a clear answer or a clear distinction between moral evil and mental illness, and the example of the Aztecs is a good one. So is the example of the Nazis. I have no explaination for that sort of behavior, and "mental illness" clearly does not cover that sort of societal evil. |
Author: Ally
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 08:10 am | | Mental illness doesn't have a definition anymore than physical illness does or only a very broad terminology. There are several different ways in which physical illness can present itself and there are several different ways that mental illness can present itself. The most simplistic definition of mental illness would hold true for physical,with a word substitution: something in the mind isn't working right.
Now, I have this student, who rather than discussing algebra in class, prefers to sit and converse with the angels and the devils talking in her head. Now, I could say this is just different thinking because when I was that age, I would prefer to converse with anyone as well if it meant I didn't have to learn math.
And when she says with great serious how her ex-boss comes into her room every night with an axe to try to kill her, one could pass that off to a different kind of imagination.
When she attempts to stick her hands in a pot of boiling oil because the demons in her head are screaming and she wants them to stop, I have to say that something in her brain isn't working right and she is ill.
Paranoid, delusions of persecution, self-injurious behavior.... hmmmmm...
Ally |
Author: Billy Markland
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 12:50 am | | Ally, do you think perhaps this whole thread regarding "mental illness" should be moved to it's own topic, maybe in the Pub. Let's face it, we will, with a certainty factor of close to 99%, never be able to prove one way or another whether JtR was nuts.
My opinion is to consider him at best a deviate...one who goes beyond the "social norms" of that era. Granted, the mutilation crimes committed transcended the Victorian Era and are against against all modern "Anglo-Saxon" norms. But, does that prove that he was nuts? No, we lack the knowledge to classify the culprit because we do not know the killer nor the motive. Only when those two are known can we be certain whether he was truly, in our definitions, mentally ill.
Best of wishes,
Billy |
Author: Dan Norder
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 02:25 am | | Billy,
I don't get why talking about mental illness should be moved to the Pub. It's more on topic than a lot of conversations currently going on in the areas about the case.
Considering that some people hang their choice of suspects (especially Cohen, the topic of this thread) on this issue it's pretty important to try to clear up people's misconceptions.
The fact that people disagree doesn't make it any less important, it just means that people always disagree over everything. Although it does look like we are getting a concensus on the issue of "insanity" finally... other than a few holdouts insisting upon using seriously outdated definitions for personal reasons.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: Billy Markland
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 01:31 pm | | Dan, good point. Perhaps then a separate General Discussion for Mental Illness or an alternative title might be, Was Jack Nuttier Than a Fruitcake.
My only reason for making the suggestion was that the discussion re: Mental Illness had managed to hijack the entire Cohen thread to the exclusion of all else relevent to Cohen.
Regardless, I will cheerfully tag along with a) either the majority or, more importantly, b) however She Who MUST Be Obeyed decides.
Best of wishes,
Billy
P.S. Now off to take the munchkin and her friends sledding. We got 6-7 inches of the fluffy, white stuff last night. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 03:02 pm | | Hi Billy,
Actually, the mental illness question came up because someone made the observation that Cohen was mentally ill, and so was Jack the Ripper, so that makes Cohen a more plausible suspect.
There are those who do not think Jack the Ripper was mentally ill - and perhaps those who think Cohen wasn't either.
Nonetheless, the implicit theory some hold to, as you know, is that the killer's mental health was degenerating with the escalation of violence - and this matches up well with Cohen's breakdown.
It is a plausible theory while by no means proven.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Neale Carter
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 09:46 pm | | Hi Billy, Rich et al,
In addition to our debating Jack's mental state in today's terms we shoud also consider the view of the time. Does anyone know what types or level of behavior would get one admitted to an asylum in the 1880's? I assume it would be markedly different to today; for instance were eccentrics or people who were just plain weird locked up. I assume there was some sort of legislation covering asylums and working definitions of insanity. If the requirements for committal were relatively low, Jack could have been deemed insane around the time but still have the ability to escape detection.
There are plenty of discussions around "asylum" & "insanity" but I haven't tracked down this info yet. I'd be grateful for any direction.
Neale |
Author: David Radka
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 12:03 am | | Neale,
It would be good to read Michael Foucault for the above questions. You are into a rich area.
Very basically, getting locked up in former times had a lot to do with one's inability to make a go in society, for whatever reason. Hence the many debtors' prisons, poor houses and workhouses. Overt signs of madness also got you locked up. Interestingly, these reasons for getting locked up were not much distinguished one from the other by society, although prison for criminals was another matter.
It was very easy to get oneself declared legally insane, if you wanted that option.
Once there were psychiatric "experts" in these matters, things changed. At that point, scientific and technical explanations for madness replaced the prior omnibus approach. Asylums became places for the "mentally ill" only, and debtors' prisons, workhouses and pauper houses declined. But at the same time, the power society invested in the "experts" came to be abused by them. They proceded to manufacture madness, or find scientific and technical reasons to declare people "mentally ill" who were perhaps merely unusual or foolish. This is a massive abuse of power, and continues today. The "experts" are essentially paid big money by society to rid the mainstream of whatever may upset it.
David |
Author: Philip Rayner
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 04:20 am | | Agreed David.
I remember a case in which a young girl was placed in an asylum, with the agreement of her family, because she was pregnant and the father had deserted her. This was I believe in the 1930's. She was released as I remember in the late 80's having spent most of her adult life surrounded by people with mental problems. The tragedy was that she could not adjust to life outside. From the tv reports I saw she was an intelligent woman. I wish I could say this doesn't happen today. I would love to be able to disagree on this one Dave but I can't having read some of the travesties perpetrated on normal people who just happen to be different. |
Author: Dan Norder
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 05:11 am | | Actually, these days it is extremely difficult to get someone committed to an institution against their will, at least in the U.S.
The main criteria is if they are at risk for violence. Even someone with a full-on hallucinatory state can't be committed unless their hallucinations makes them dangerous to themselves or to others.
Many seriously sick people were deinstitutionalized in the '80s (when the criteria changed) and basically left to become homeless because they could not cope with the world in any way.
It seems odd that people would even think that there's a problem currently, especially in comparison to the Victorian era, when Oscar Wilde could get locked up for reasons that nobody would even think twice about these days.
There's really no comparison.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: Philip Rayner
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 05:55 am | | I'll bow to your knowledge on that one Dan.
Regarding release into the community, this also happened in the UK. I think partialy it was to relieve the pressure on the health service. Many who were in need of the help offered by a mental institution were thrown into a system they did not understand. They were at least offered help to get established. |
Author: David Radka
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 11:31 am | | Mr. Norder,
Your mind is too small.
Just enter "Szasz" into your search engine, and you will be taken to where these matters can be explained to you.
David |
Author: David Jetson
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 12:28 pm | | Being a curious chap, I entered Szasz into a search engine, just to see what happened.
I found Thomas Szasz's Summary Statement and Manifesto, at
http://www.szasz.com/manifesto.html
That would seem to be a pretty good place to find out what Szasz is.
The guy says, right there in point one, ""Myth of mental illness." Mental illness is a metaphor (metaphorical disease). The word "disease" denotes a demonstrable biological process that affects the bodies of living organisms (plants, animals, and humans). The term "mental illness" refers to the undesirable thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of persons. Classifying thoughts, feelings, and behaviors as diseases is a logical and semantic error, like classifying the whale as a fish. As the whale is not a fish, mental illness is not a disease. Individuals with brain diseases (bad brains) or kidney diseases (bad kidneys) are literally sick. Individuals with mental diseases (bad behaviors), like societies with economic diseases (bad fiscal policies), are metaphorically sick. The classification of (mis)behavior as illness provides an ideological justification for state-sponsored social control as medical treatment."
This fellow is right to a small extent, in that mental illness DOES have a physical form: it is the result of brain damage or chemical imbalances. And it has been shown and proven that environment can and DOES affect the physical structure of the brain.
Saying "mental illness is a myth" seems to me to be a pretty destructive way of treating people with emotional problems (which, as I said, are proven to be based in the physical brain).
Try telling a suicidally depressed person with unipolar disorder that mental illness is a myth. Try telling them that the agony they live with doesn't exist.
You can see pictures of brainscans SHOWING that people with mental illnesses have brains that are PHYSICALLY DIFFERENT to people who don't.
And a visit to any place where these people are treated will show you that mental health treatment is NOT about trying to force "unconventional" people into conforming, it's about trying to alleviate the sufferings of people who are often very clearly in pain.
The amount of ignorance displayed in the "manifesto" is really frightening. And, I would say, it reeks of paranoia. Far from being a refutation of the existance of mental illnesses, I'd say it's a pretty good example of one. |
Author: David Jetson
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 12:37 pm | | | And there I was, hoping not to get dragged into this debate again... |
Author: David Radka
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 12:40 pm | | David,
I took a course in Szasz at Trinity College in the M.A. program. Dr. Miller Brown was the Professor; he was excellent and a long-term influence on me. Your initial reaction to Szasz' materials is the same as mine was then, as was that of most of the other people taking the course. Szasz needs to be studied very dilligently to be understood; it takes a year or more of concerted effort to master what he has to say. One needs to do a lot of reading, and work through many case histories to understand. All of Szasz' books should be read, as well as "Asylums" by Goffman and Dr. Miller Brown's own articles in philosophical journals.
David |
Author: Cris Novack
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 12:43 pm | | | I found it to be a very good Libertarian read. |
Author: Dan Norder
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 01:01 pm | | Radka,
You should stop with the string of "You're [penis / imagination / mind] is too small" quips. They're tired.
I am all too aware of Szasz's beliefs and background. One guy saying that mental illness is a myth does not mean that he is right. Heck, the Scientologists say that too, and nobody takes them seriously.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: Alegria [Moderator]
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 05:08 pm | | Not only are they tired but they violate the personal attacks policy which I do believe I have already explained is going to be strictly enforced from now on.
David,
You are one snide comment away from making today a 3-for-1 clearinghouse special.
Ally |
Author: David Radka
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 09:39 pm | | "I am all too aware of Szasz's beliefs and background. One guy saying that mental illness is a myth does not mean that he is right."
Short reading list for a background in Szaszian thinking:
1. Foucault, Michael: MADNESS AND CIVILIZATION. If I had to make a list of the 100 most ingenious books either written in or translated into English, this book would be on it. It is basically a core sample of the ways in which madness has been treated over the ages, with succinct reflections by the author.
2. Szasz, Thomas: THE MYTH OF MENTAL ILLNESS. THE MYTH OF PSYCHOTHERAPY. MANUFACTURING MADNESS. You need three books to cover Szasz' overall position.
3. Goffman, Erving: ASYLUMS. This book came out at about the same time THE MYTH OF MENTAL ILLNESS did, and the two rather confirmed one another.
4. Articles written about Szasz in philosophical journals by Professor Miller Brown. |
Author: David Jetson
Saturday, 18 January 2003 - 01:09 am | | I'm not saying Szasz is 100% wrong, in fact I agree with certain things that he says, and I'm definately a believer in personal responsibility. I just think that mental illness is real and that mentally ill people need treatment. We only have to see that in the last decade or two, where many people have been de-institutionalised on to the streets where they end up causing damage to themselves and/or others to see that ignoring mental illness and hoping it goes away is a very a bad idea.
Far from wanting to lock people up for having "bad thoughts," society seems to me to want to force people onto the streets when it SHOULD be helping them. Modern society, especially in the US, seems to me to be TRYING to make some helpless people responsible for themselves.
It really isn't a question of trying to control people, it is a question of treating the ill and protecting people from the dangerous.
I do agree with Szasz about the power and influence of the drug companies, but I have also personally seen how drugs can help a miserable person improve their quality of life. And I think denying medicine to the sick is way worse than enriching drug companies in the process.
If you're convinced that mental illnesses don't exist, then Szasz's ideas are fine: however, I have personally seen and observed mentally ill people, and I have personally seen tortured lives made livable with the help of drugs. The whole reason that drugs work is that mental illness is a symptom of physical brain disorders, so saying there is a difference between mental illness and physical illness is wrong.
To an extent, Szasz is correct in saying there is no mental illness: it's ALL physical illness, it's just that problems with the physical brain manifest themselves as mental illnesses.
However, I don't see anyone saying that you can cure diabetes or AIDS by ignoring it. Which is precisely what Szasz seems to me to be saying about mental illnesses. |
Author: David Radka
Saturday, 18 January 2003 - 11:47 am | | David,
1. I don't agree with Szasz 100% myself. I think there are people who have perspectives and outlooks so far from normal that they should be categorized somehow, even though they are neither physically nor mentally ill. Hitler, Saddam, Milosevic, etc.
2. Szasz isn't saying that people currently classified as "mentally ill" don't really have problems or should be ignored. He is only saying that illnesses of the mind do not exist. Szasz is himself a practicing psychiatrist. He treats his clients using psychiatric techniques. He believes in it--it is his profession. What he doen't believe in is the right that psychiatrists have been given by mainstream society to make decisions on who is a deviant and who isn't based upon non-existent "mental illness." Szasz has shown conclusively that these decisions can be and repeatedly are made arbitrarily, for the purposes of the powers-that-be, and the powers-that-be are the psychiatrists themselves. For Szasz, the psychiatrist in contemporary society has assumed the pinnacle position of supreme witch doctor; what he says goes, who he condemns, is condemned. This is what Szasz doesn't like.
David |
Author: Dan Norder
Sunday, 19 January 2003 - 04:01 am | | Since the laws changed in the '80s, psychiatrists (and psychologists) don't have that much power in society. They don't really get to condemn anyone except those already condemned by police, politicians and religious leaders.
The only exceptions I can think of were the severely undertrained counsellors (typically not actual psychiatrists, though there were a few here and there) who used now discredited techniques to find "recovered memories" of alleged childhood sexual abuse or even Satanic rituals. Of course even then it was the police and religious leaders who had to do the actual condemning.
But, at any rate, Szasz's beliefs aren't related to the Ripper case any more than a flat-earther's theories would be pertinent to a discussion about the upcoming marslander missions.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: David Radka
Sunday, 19 January 2003 - 01:46 pm | | "Since the laws changed in the '80s, psychiatrists (and psychologists) don't have that much power in society. They don't really get to condemn anyone except those already condemned by police, politicians and religious leaders."
Not true. According to Szasz, the power in society psychiatrists have comes straight from the semantic existence of "mental illness." As long as there is "mental illness," there are psychiatric abuses. Read his books and see for yourself.
"Szasz's beliefs aren't related to the Ripper case any more than a flat-earther's theories would be pertinent to a discussion about the upcoming marslander missions."
I'd be wary of anyone pejoratively labelling Szasz a "flat-earther," which means someone whose views cannot be taken seriously. Szasz happens to be one of the most respected academicians of the past 50 years worldwide, a fact that can be immediately verified on the internet. He was a top psychiatry professor at the State University of New York until he retired.
Szasz'views are certainly pertinent to any reasonable discussion of Jack the Ripper, since there is strong evidence that, whoever he was, he had a serious psychiatric problem.
David
|
Author: Dan Norder
Sunday, 19 January 2003 - 02:28 pm | | Hey, if you think they're related, all you have to do is start substantiating it. What's the supposed connection?
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: Billy Markland
Sunday, 19 January 2003 - 11:12 pm | | Dan,
Regarding Szasz's theories and your wonderment regarding their relevance to the JtR case, I will quote you an extract from your post, in answer to mine, requesting a separate board for Mental Illness.
Dan Norder wrote on Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 02:25 am:
"Considering that some people hang their choice of suspects (especially Cohen, the topic of this thread) on this issue it's pretty important to try to clear up people's misconceptions".
Dan, you can not have it both ways. One moment you are arguing that mental illness is intrinsic to the case. When David quotes a known researcher on mental illness, well, you state on 19 January 2003 - 04:01 am:
"But, at any rate, Szasz's beliefs aren't related to the Ripper case any more than a flat-earther's theories would be pertinent to a discussion about the upcoming marslander missions".
Either mental illness is or is not relevent to the case. You, so far, have managed to straddle both sides of the fence in your postings regarding the subject.
Believe me when I state that I have no vested interest whatsoever in this particular discussion, I only wish to see consistancy in the arguments of the advocates of the various theories.
Best of wishes,
Billy |
Author: Dan Norder
Monday, 20 January 2003 - 02:59 am | | Billy,
Mental illness is relevant, in that it can help to determine if Cohen makes any sense at all as a suspect. That doesn't mean every footnote of any topic related to mental illness makes any sense to be posted here.
If someone posted on the Cornwell/Sickert board that we should stop talking about mitochondrial DNA because it wasn't relevant, I'd post that it is relevant as it is part of Cornwell so-called case. But that wouldn't mean that someone trying to claim that DNA doesn't exist would be on topic.
Szasz is not a "known researcher on mental illness" -- he's a disbeliever in mental illness. The people who believe that the U.S. faked the moon landings are not "known researchers on space travel," and people who think fossils were created by Satan to fool disbelievers into thinking evolution is real are not "researchers on paleontology."
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
|
|
|
|
