Jared Loughner

[El Barto]

Loughner can't be forcibly medicated

This is just a damned fascinating situation.  So many avenues of intrigue.  For one thing, I don't think there's anybody out there who doesn't realize that this kid's the textbook example of batshit insane.  It would seem that the state is interested in medicating him to make him capable of standing trial, but to what end?  So he can share a padded cell with Hinkly for the next 40 years?  He's already there.  Being clear minded during a trial has no bearing on his mental state at the time of the shooting.  If anything, it seems like the state is undermining any potential case by claiming that he requires powerful anti-psychotics just to be able to get by in a loony bin.  I'm certainly not an expert, but it seems like letting him stay crazy might be the best way to keep him off the streets. 

But the more interesting question is whether or not the guy has a right to stay schizophrenic if he wants, now that he's permanently removed from society.  Judging from all those freakish mugshots, I'd say that the guy seems fairly happy in his own bizarre way.  Is it actually in his best interest to turn him into Randle McMurphy?

I understand that there are a lot of family members of dead people who'd like to see somebody brought to justice,  and I'm actually quite sympathetic towards them,  but it's just not always possible.  In this case,  I don't see how punishment is actually a reasonable thing given that he wasn't responsible for his actions.  If punishment isn't a reasonable option, then how can you justify turning him from what he wants to be into a vegetable? 

[lordxizor]

If punishment isn't a reasonable option, then how can you justify turning him from what he wants to be into a vegetable? 

Why isn't punishment reasonable? Perhaps the punishment should be making him take medication.

[El Barto]

If punishment isn't a reasonable option, then how can you justify turning him from what he wants to be into a vegetable? 

Why isn't punishment reasonable? Perhaps the punishment should be making him take medication.

I had certainly considered that.  The problem is that if he had no control over his actions, and not because of any voluntary means, then I don't see any reason to punish him.  If a five year old finds a gun around the house and uses it to blow away her brother, a la Harry Callahan, the first reaction isn't BURN HER!  A similar situation would be the bear in Yellowstone that killed a guy last week.  The rangers decided (and quite surprisingly) that the bear was just acting line a bear, and opted not to kill it.  Sometimes things like this just happen, and you don't always get somebody to fry.

[Scheavo]

But the more interesting question is whether or not the guy has a right to stay schizophrenic if he wants, now that he's permanently removed from society.  Judging from all those freakish mugshots, I'd say that the guy seems fairly happy in his own bizarre way.  Is it actually in his best interest to turn him into Randle McMurphy?

I say yes to this. I'm fairly convinced that every single person is technically insane according to modern psychology. All modern pscyhology does is look to see what is "normal," and label the "abnormal" bad, and a disease. If most people don't think like you, act like you, etc, you have a disease. The problem I see with this is that there isn't a clear majority of how people are, which means everyone has some trait which isn't "normal." Psychologists have even dissected children book characters, and labeling every single one with a disease, and how it operates. If the guy is happy, and refuses "treatment," that his life, that's his choice.

[Adami]

Scheavo, I'm not sure you understand what modern psychology is all about.

[Scheavo]

Perhaps not, but I've examed the method enough to see how faulty it is. We over pathologize in our society, make differences into diseases, and medicate people into normalcy.

[Adami]

Perhaps not, but I've examed the method enough to see how faulty it is. We over pathologize in our society, make differences into diseases, and medicate people into normalcy.

Sometimes.....but that's psychiatry, a field I am very much against. Psychologists don't medicate.

[El Barto]

But the more interesting question is whether or not the guy has a right to stay schizophrenic if he wants, now that he's permanently removed from society.  Judging from all those freakish mugshots, I'd say that the guy seems fairly happy in his own bizarre way.  Is it actually in his best interest to turn him into Randle McMurphy?

I say yes to this. I'm fairly convinced that every single person is technically insane according to modern psychology. All modern pscyhology does is look to see what is "normal," and label the "abnormal" bad, and a disease. If most people don't think like you, act like you, etc, you have a disease. The problem I see with this is that there isn't a clear majority of how people are, which means everyone has some trait which isn't "normal." Psychologists have even dissected children book characters, and labeling every single one with a disease, and how it operates. If the guy is happy, and refuses "treatment," that his life, that's his choice.

I get where you're coming from, but this chap is a far cry from just eccentric.  We're not talking about jerking off in the lady's room at the Apple store while wearing a Barny costume sick.  We're talking about full blown schizophrenia with paranoid delusions here. 

[Scheavo]

Oh, I think that's why we should throw the man in prison... he's a danger to other people.

Perhaps not, but I've examed the method enough to see how faulty it is. We over pathologize in our society, make differences into diseases, and medicate people into normalcy.

Sometimes.....but that's psychiatry, a field I am very much against. Psychologists don't medicate.

Psychologists don't give the medicine, no; but they perform the case studies which outline the disease, which psychiatrists refer to (the DSM). I also believe that the college course work to become either are very similar.

[Adami]

They're not.


Psychologists aren't in a hurry to diagnose people. And if you want to blame someone for over diagnosing, blame insurance companies who force us to diagnose people on the first meeting with specific diagnoses or else they refuse to cover any form of therapy.

Also in cases like this in law, having someone diagnosed with a mental illness is usually preferred to spending hard time in jail. Then again we don't usually just drug people and lock them away like this case seems to be suggesting.



Either way your stereotypes of the field of psychology are old fashioned and unfortunately unfounded. Sure there are plenty of bad therapists out there, but the field isn't out to chastise the different.




Also as Barto pointed out, this isn't a case of someone who just likes different things than the rest of us.


EDIT: Also, the DSM is compiled by psychiatrists, not psychologists.

[Scheavo]

Okay, it appears I've been mislabeling what I'm annoyed at, so you're right. I've never been able to understand the differences and stratification we do surrounding this issue. Both psychologists and psychiatrists deal with a very similiar subject, and I don't think pointing out that they're technically different professions means that there isn't influence or similarities between the two.

Either way your stereotypes of the field of psychology are old fashioned and unfortunately unfounded. Sure there are plenty of bad therapists out there, but the field isn't out to chastise the different

It doesn't have to be out to chastise the different in order to be effectively doing it. I'm basing my "stereotypes" on my experience of reading a lot of psychology, seeing what they do, how they do it, etc. I think the underlying issue is something bigger than psychology, and is something in science in general. The entire field that studies the psyche, whether it be through psychology, psychiatry, or neuroscience, is in my opinion, unfounded and operating under a set of assumptions that are unproven.

There's plenty which psychology does which doesn't chastise the different (I've read a lot of psychology because I obviously find it to be an interesting field), but a ton of it's evidence and it's reasoning is based upon statistics, and done studying a very small sector of society.

Also as Barto pointed out, this isn't a case of someone who just likes different things than the rest of us.

I just don't think that gives us the right to change his very psyche against his will. That doesn't mean we can't confine him because he's proven himself to be a threat to society.

[Adami]

Did a single person here argue that the person should be drugged at all costs?


Of course not. I am against drugs, all of them.

[j]

I had certainly considered that.  The problem is that if he had no control over his actions, and not because of any voluntary means, then I don't see any reason to punish him.  If a five year old finds a gun around the house and uses it to blow away her brother, a la Harry Callahan, the first reaction isn't BURN HER!  A similar situation would be the bear in Yellowstone that killed a guy last week.  The rangers decided (and quite surprisingly) that the bear was just acting line a bear, and opted not to kill it.  Sometimes things like this just happen, and you don't always get somebody to fry.

I don't buy for a second that we can remotely conclude that the guy had "no control" over his actions.  A baseline of personal responsibility has to kick in at some point, because the tenuous speculative nature of psychology is far from reliable enough to cut it.

That said, I don't think he should be forcibly drugged.

Okay, it appears I've been mislabeling what I'm annoyed at, so you're right. I've never been able to understand the differences and stratification we do surrounding this issue. Both psychologists and psychiatrists deal with a very similiar subject, and I don't think pointing out that they're technically different professions means that there isn't influence or similarities between the two.

Yeah they're very similar, but (although you probably already know) I'd add that one has an MD and one has a PhD, which means they'll have significantly different training.  Beyond that, psychologists can't prescribe meds (to my knowledge) and tend to do more therapy, but they are definitely of the same ilk.  Neuroscience inevitably overlaps with both, but ideally deals less with the myriad of "unproven assumptions" you speak of that plague the foundation of psychology and psychiatry.

Of course not. I am against drugs, all of them.

At the risk of a slight derail, do you mean just psychoactive drugs or literally *all* drugs, for medication or recreation?  And if the latter, may I ask why?

-J

[Scheavo]

Did a single person here argue that the person should be drugged at all costs?

It was a topic brought up by the thread, and one I was disagreeing with the entire time.

Of course not. I am against drugs, all of them.

And here we agree, especially in the given context. I don't think we know enough about the psyche, the brain, or consciousness to think science gives us a good foothold to chemically alter it.

Neuroscience inevitably overlaps with both, but ideally deals less with the myriad of "unproven assumptions" you speak of that plague the foundation of psychology and psychiatry.

Well, there my problem would lie more with physical theories such as cause and effect. It assumes something happening in the brain, which we can measure, is a "cause;" but I don't see any reason in science to accept this is the fact. It could be an "effect" for all we know. Computer analogies abound neuroscience, and I think this lies upon a couple of different unproven assumptions.

[El Barto]

I had certainly considered that.  The problem is that if he had no control over his actions, and not because of any voluntary means, then I don't see any reason to punish him.  If a five year old finds a gun around the house and uses it to blow away her brother, a la Harry Callahan, the first reaction isn't BURN HER!  A similar situation would be the bear in Yellowstone that killed a guy last week.  The rangers decided (and quite surprisingly) that the bear was just acting line a bear, and opted not to kill it.  Sometimes things like this just happen, and you don't always get somebody to fry.

I don't buy for a second that we can remotely conclude that the guy had "no control" over his actions.  A baseline of personal responsibility has to kick in at some point, because the tenuous speculative nature of psychology is far from reliable enough to cut it.
-J

Not sure if I follow.  If you're saying that we can't prove that he wasn't in control of his actions, I suppose I have to agree,  but we can certainly come to that conclusion with enough certainty to allow it as a mitigating factor.  If you're using a "baseline of personal responsibility" to suggest that he would have had enough control over his actions to prevent his rampage, then I have to disagree. 

In either case, I agree that he shouldn't be forcibly medicated, either to allow him to stand trial or just to make him a more manageable prisoner.

[Perpetual Change]

I'm not for him being medicated just so he can stand trial and we can have another blown up national trial thing to watch.

But I'd certainly be interesting in hearing him testify.

[Dublagent66]

Why do we continue to waste money on these people?  Because they have rights?   

[j]

I had certainly considered that.  The problem is that if he had no control over his actions, and not because of any voluntary means, then I don't see any reason to punish him.  If a five year old finds a gun around the house and uses it to blow away her brother, a la Harry Callahan, the first reaction isn't BURN HER!  A similar situation would be the bear in Yellowstone that killed a guy last week.  The rangers decided (and quite surprisingly) that the bear was just acting line a bear, and opted not to kill it.  Sometimes things like this just happen, and you don't always get somebody to fry.

I don't buy for a second that we can remotely conclude that the guy had "no control" over his actions.  A baseline of personal responsibility has to kick in at some point, because the tenuous speculative nature of psychology is far from reliable enough to cut it.
-J

Not sure if I follow.  If you're saying that we can't prove that he wasn't in control of his actions, I suppose I have to agree,  but we can certainly come to that conclusion with enough certainty to allow it as a mitigating factor.  If you're using a "baseline of personal responsibility" to suggest that he would have had enough control over his actions to prevent his rampage, then I have to disagree. 

In either case, I agree that he shouldn't be forcibly medicated, either to allow him to stand trial or just to make him a more manageable prisoner.

I'm saying that while it's pretty obvious the dude is crazy, and not entirely "in control of his actions", I think your analogies of a bear acting on instinct and a 5 year old shooting somebody are a different story.  Both bears and 5 year olds inherently lack the capacity for rational decision-making, and don't bear the legal burdens of responsibility that typical adults do.  With this guy, we're stuck trying to figure out to what degree he IS responsible for what he did, and it's a pretty pointless effort.  Can we really say that there's no possibility he could have chosen not to go on his killing spree?

Maybe I'm unclear on what your point is here.  I'm with you in that I don't think the dude should be "punished" by being drugged, but my reason for thinking that has nothing to do with whether or not he was in his right mind when he was shooting up the place.

-J

[ReaPsTA]

Of course not. I am against drugs, all of them.

There are tons of people who rely on them to maintain basic sanity who would violently disagree with you.  Like, seriously.  What's your response to schizophrenics who rely on them to not see and hear things that aren't there, those with depression who need them to feel like anything other than laying around is worth doing, and/or those with anxiety who need them to do basic things like talking in front of people without feeling like they're doing to die?

[El Barto]

I'm saying that while it's pretty obvious the dude is crazy, and not entirely "in control of his actions", I think your analogies of a bear acting on instinct and a 5 year old shooting somebody are a different story.  Both bears and 5 year olds inherently lack the capacity for rational decision-making, and don't bear the legal burdens of responsibility that typical adults do.  With this guy, we're stuck trying to figure out to what degree he IS responsible for what he did, and it's a pretty pointless effort.  Can we really say that there's no possibility he could have chosen not to go on his killing spree?

-J

They're different in their process, but similar in the result.  Yes, Loughner presumably did have some capacity for rational decision making, he was able to take a cab to the scene of the shooting, but if all of the data that he formed rational decisions with was gobbledygook, then how was his decision making ability relevant?  GIGO.  Now,  I agree with you that we have no way of knowing just how screwy that data was,  but in this case,  I don't have too much trouble taking the word of the professionals that he was just plain out of his skull. 

[Adami]

Of course not. I am against drugs, all of them.

There are tons of people who rely on them to maintain basic sanity who would violently disagree with you.  Like, seriously.  What's your response to schizophrenics who rely on them to not see and hear things that aren't there, those with depression who need them to feel like anything other than laying around is worth doing, and/or those with anxiety who need them to do basic things like talking in front of people without feeling like they're doing to die?

That they are free and welcome to take them.

[ReaPsTA]

That they are free and welcome to take them.

Um, well then.  So are you just personally against drugs or are you the weakest campaigner against everything that's ever lived?  You could have said "ABORTION IS MURDER" and followed that up with "Look, sometimes women just have to flush those parasitic balls of goo into a dumpster" and I would have been maybe a little less surprised.

[Adami]

That they are free and welcome to take them.

Um, well then.  So are you just personally against drugs or are you the weakest campaigner against everything that's ever lived?  You could have said "ABORTION IS MURDER" and followed that up with "Look, sometimes women just have to flush those parasitic balls of goo into a dumpster" and I would have been maybe a little less surprised.

Alright.

[ReaPsTA]

Alright.

[Scheavo]

I think it would be more like... I have no desire to shoot up heroin, but I think it should be legal.

[j]

I'm saying that while it's pretty obvious the dude is crazy, and not entirely "in control of his actions", I think your analogies of a bear acting on instinct and a 5 year old shooting somebody are a different story.  Both bears and 5 year olds inherently lack the capacity for rational decision-making, and don't bear the legal burdens of responsibility that typical adults do.  With this guy, we're stuck trying to figure out to what degree he IS responsible for what he did, and it's a pretty pointless effort.  Can we really say that there's no possibility he could have chosen not to go on his killing spree?

-J

They're different in their process, but similar in the result.  Yes, Loughner presumably did have some capacity for rational decision making, he was able to take a cab to the scene of the shooting, but if all of the data that he formed rational decisions with was gobbledygook, then how was his decision making ability relevant?  GIGO.  Now,  I agree with you that we have no way of knowing just how screwy that data was,  but in this case,  I don't have too much trouble taking the word of the professionals that he was just plain out of his skull. 

Nah, I agree he was pretty clearly bat-shit crazy based on what I've read.  I just personally think making determinations like that in a LEGAL context is shaky territory to get into, especially given my already low regard for the field of psychology, which would inevitably be making the calls (along with legal professionals ).  We're all operating with our own brand of screwy data, and frankly we don't know nearly enough to know just how screwy ours or anybody else's is.  I'm even a little wary of the "insanity plea to lighten a sentence" method that brings in some of the same questions.

-J

[El Barto]

Well, luckily for you,  an insanity defense is nearly impossible to pull off.  Personally,  I don't like the way it works.  Knowing right vs. wrong doesn't really matter if you're unable to act based on that knowledge.  But I agree that it's a pretty shaky concept to try and pin down.  Plus, you'll have both sides abusing the shit out of psychological analysis, so that doesn't really help matters. 

[El Barto]

https://tucsoncitizen.com/arizona-news/2011/08/27/judge-allows-loughners-forcible-medication/

They've now decided to resume the forcible medication, and after reading about how poorly he fared un-drugged,  I have a hard time objecting to that.  If he was in a happy place being a loon, it would be one thing, but the kid is apparently screwy enough to pose a significant danger to himself.  I still don't see the point in restoring him to a point of being able to stand trial,  but turning him into sane inmate seems preferable than keeping him a crazed and caged animal. 

[Scheavo]

If he was in a happy place being a loon, it would be one thing, but the kid is apparently screwy enough to pose a significant danger to himself. 

I can't decide where I stand on this. On the one hand, he's not quite right in the head, so on medication he might still want to live. On the other hand, can we really tell weather the medicine is affective because it heals, or becuase it subdues?

Honestly, considering how ugly every single answer is to such an ugly situation, I'm also not entirely sure letting the man off himself isn't the best thing in the end. I personally think suicide is moronic, but I don't think I have the right to tell another person they have to live. Not like you're going to live forever anyways.