Good Bedfellows: Cellphones, Insanity
Two issues: Cell Phones. Insanity.
Insanity first.
(scroll down)
So, the root of my complaining? The recent case surmized by the Times as such: "a 17-year-old Arizona man named Eric Michael Clark, who shot a police officer, believing him to be a space alien."
This case found its way to the Supreme Court.
And, guess what?
They prosecuted him. And, in my opinion, rightfully so.
But former NAMILACCC president Jim Randall, in his July 16 editorial "Mental Illness Is Not a Crime," disagrees. Allow me briefly to whine about some of the things he says:
"Although it's unknown exactly what went on in the mind of the young man after he shot the policeman, it's reasonable to believe the state of terror that drove him to take another man's life could have easily propelled him to flee."
Okay, so right off the bat, Randall says he believes that the murder of a policeman by a deranged individual is reasonable. Let us continue...
"To make inferences about his state of mind by using the standard of what a person without a brain disorder would be thinking if they ran away from the scene of the crime is unreasonable."
Ah, hypocrisy - wonderful hypocrisy! First, he gives no direct indications that the Supreme Court made inferences based on the thoughts of normal crime scene-fleers, a failure of reporting that makes me wonder what kind of sourly terrible taste for bad journalism the shmucks who chose to run Randall's column have. Second, he contradicts what he said in the previous statement, in which he too extrapolates what might be reasonable to assume goes through a deranged person's brain...or does he think he's an authority on the issue?
"Clearly, if someone with a mental illness demonstrates they are capable of murder, they need to be removed from society for the public good until they are no longer a danger. They need to be in a hospital. But to hold them morally accountable for their actions, as though delusions and hearing voices would not impair their basic judgment, defies fairness and common sense."
Gee, such a bleeding heart!
Though his first sentence is absolutely true [in my opinion], what he doesn't realize is that Clark is not merely "capable of murder," the deranged lunatic actually committed murder! Jeez! And of course, Randall's mainitaing that we're holding Clark "morally accountable."
What a shitload. We're not. We're holding him legally accountable. Oh, and who said anything about "fairness." Fairness to the mentally ill's one thing. Fairness to murder? Quite another.
And before his conclusion (to which we'll get in a moment), Randall does a breakdown:
"The problem of criminalizing people with a mental illness goes far beyond the single tragic case in Arizona. The Bureau of Justice Statistics says there are currently 2.2 million people in prison or in jail. Given that it's estimated that 15% of this population suffers from a severe mental illness, that means the United States has roughly 330,000 people incarcerated who suffer from brain disorders. Professor Richard Lamb of USC estimates that roughly half of this population should be behind bars (a drug dealer suffering from major depression would be an example).
But that means another 165,000 should be hospitalized or in outpatient care, not incarcerated. Instead, they are thrown in cages — brutalized, isolated and often untreated — not because of faults in their character or because they behaved in a way they knew to be wrong, but because of behavior stemming from biologically based brain disorders."
First, he does not cite his first source (the Bureau of Justice) in a footnote. Second, he proves he can do eighth grade math. Ooh, big one, I say we believe everything he says, eh?!
Third, he bases the entire second portion of this argument on the estimations of a college professor. Now of all things, that is the most bizarre.
But the most important thing to note is the observation that in this passage he was referring to the number of jailed/imprisoned people who are mentally ill, not the percentage of mentally ill people who are in jail/prison. Such a mishap, I think, discredits his assertions somewhat.
And finally, for good laughs, his conclusion:
"Future generations will look back on us and our treatment of people with mental illness much as we look back on the Spanish Inquisitors who burned Jews at the stake for not recanting their religion, or on the white racists who lynched African Americans for being insubordinate. Future generations will see us through the lens of history and ask how we dared to be so ignorant."
Okay, and now on to...cell phones.
So, many politicians in CA (incl. the Guv'nor) want to make the usage of cell phones in cars...illegal. At least, they wanna make the one-hand-on-wheel aspect illegal.
But a [rightfully] well-publicized report was issued demonstrating that people who use earphones during cell phone conversations in the car are just as likely to get into a car accident as people actually holding a cell phone to their ear.
Like, what?
In other words, this silly legislation, if it passes (which it won't because no one in California would vote for it), would be a completely worthless waste of politicians' time and taxpayers' money. Oh, and an interesting fact: the first cordless phones were invented for use in the car!
More good laughs, incredulities and hypocrisies from the LA Times coming later today...
- Sentientity
Insanity first.
(scroll down)
So, the root of my complaining? The recent case surmized by the Times as such: "a 17-year-old Arizona man named Eric Michael Clark, who shot a police officer, believing him to be a space alien."
This case found its way to the Supreme Court.
And, guess what?
They prosecuted him. And, in my opinion, rightfully so.
But former NAMILACCC president Jim Randall, in his July 16 editorial "Mental Illness Is Not a Crime," disagrees. Allow me briefly to whine about some of the things he says:
"Although it's unknown exactly what went on in the mind of the young man after he shot the policeman, it's reasonable to believe the state of terror that drove him to take another man's life could have easily propelled him to flee."
Okay, so right off the bat, Randall says he believes that the murder of a policeman by a deranged individual is reasonable. Let us continue...
"To make inferences about his state of mind by using the standard of what a person without a brain disorder would be thinking if they ran away from the scene of the crime is unreasonable."
Ah, hypocrisy - wonderful hypocrisy! First, he gives no direct indications that the Supreme Court made inferences based on the thoughts of normal crime scene-fleers, a failure of reporting that makes me wonder what kind of sourly terrible taste for bad journalism the shmucks who chose to run Randall's column have. Second, he contradicts what he said in the previous statement, in which he too extrapolates what might be reasonable to assume goes through a deranged person's brain...or does he think he's an authority on the issue?
"Clearly, if someone with a mental illness demonstrates they are capable of murder, they need to be removed from society for the public good until they are no longer a danger. They need to be in a hospital. But to hold them morally accountable for their actions, as though delusions and hearing voices would not impair their basic judgment, defies fairness and common sense."
Gee, such a bleeding heart!
Though his first sentence is absolutely true [in my opinion], what he doesn't realize is that Clark is not merely "capable of murder," the deranged lunatic actually committed murder! Jeez! And of course, Randall's mainitaing that we're holding Clark "morally accountable."
What a shitload. We're not. We're holding him legally accountable. Oh, and who said anything about "fairness." Fairness to the mentally ill's one thing. Fairness to murder? Quite another.
And before his conclusion (to which we'll get in a moment), Randall does a breakdown:
"The problem of criminalizing people with a mental illness goes far beyond the single tragic case in Arizona. The Bureau of Justice Statistics says there are currently 2.2 million people in prison or in jail. Given that it's estimated that 15% of this population suffers from a severe mental illness, that means the United States has roughly 330,000 people incarcerated who suffer from brain disorders. Professor Richard Lamb of USC estimates that roughly half of this population should be behind bars (a drug dealer suffering from major depression would be an example).
But that means another 165,000 should be hospitalized or in outpatient care, not incarcerated. Instead, they are thrown in cages — brutalized, isolated and often untreated — not because of faults in their character or because they behaved in a way they knew to be wrong, but because of behavior stemming from biologically based brain disorders."
First, he does not cite his first source (the Bureau of Justice) in a footnote. Second, he proves he can do eighth grade math. Ooh, big one, I say we believe everything he says, eh?!
Third, he bases the entire second portion of this argument on the estimations of a college professor. Now of all things, that is the most bizarre.
But the most important thing to note is the observation that in this passage he was referring to the number of jailed/imprisoned people who are mentally ill, not the percentage of mentally ill people who are in jail/prison. Such a mishap, I think, discredits his assertions somewhat.
And finally, for good laughs, his conclusion:
"Future generations will look back on us and our treatment of people with mental illness much as we look back on the Spanish Inquisitors who burned Jews at the stake for not recanting their religion, or on the white racists who lynched African Americans for being insubordinate. Future generations will see us through the lens of history and ask how we dared to be so ignorant."
Okay, and now on to...cell phones.
So, many politicians in CA (incl. the Guv'nor) want to make the usage of cell phones in cars...illegal. At least, they wanna make the one-hand-on-wheel aspect illegal.
But a [rightfully] well-publicized report was issued demonstrating that people who use earphones during cell phone conversations in the car are just as likely to get into a car accident as people actually holding a cell phone to their ear.
Like, what?
In other words, this silly legislation, if it passes (which it won't because no one in California would vote for it), would be a completely worthless waste of politicians' time and taxpayers' money. Oh, and an interesting fact: the first cordless phones were invented for use in the car!
More good laughs, incredulities and hypocrisies from the LA Times coming later today...
- Sentientity
posted by Geewhiz at 9:20 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home