Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Pelosi, DePape, and the Politics of Mental Illness
The news has come out that Paul Pelosi’s assailant DePape has admitted it was political. That he admitted he was indeed there to force Nancy to tell the truth. For most of the Twit-punditry, this has meant a spiked football for them. The Right’s narrative is destroyed! The Right encourages violence and they need to pay!
However comma…
I see it more damaging to D’Souza’s narrative, of which I’ve already been skeptical. I don’t want to give this more print than has already been given, but it makes a rather salacious story. There are indeed questions that remain unanswered about the entire progression of events, but this narrative only partially answers any of those questions while raising even more.
More importantly, though, DePape’s confession does nothing to change the idea that he’s most likely suffering from psychosis of some sort, and here’s the thing with people who are psychotic: just about everything they do makes perfect sense to themselves. There’s no recognition that, say, breaking into the Pelosi house and threatening bodily harm to Nancy Pelosi until she admits her malfeasance might actually be downright insane. It makes perfect sense to them. Michael Schellenberger discusses this situation in a bit more detail here:
The media are portraying the suspect in the attack on Nancy Pelosi's husband as a man fundamentally driven by right-wing ideology. But it's obvious to anyone who looks that what drove David DePape to violence was drug-induced paranoid psychosis.https://t.co/qfs5zHokni
— Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) October 29, 2022
I’m speaking with a bit of experience here. We have a family member who’s suffering from serious mental illness. So things like, “I don’t like what this church has done in the past, so I’m going to attempt to burn down this church building” didn’t come off as downright bad decisions to them. They just went ahead and started the process. And that’s just a part of the things they’ve done that most would consider alarming and crazy. There’s nothing in them that says, “Hey, don’t do that — that’s crazy!” And it’s hard to get them help, because as far as they perceive, they are completely rational individuals.
And here’s the other thing: If those who are dangerously mentally ill aren’t properly cared for, the Pelosi situation, our family situation, these things aren’t avoidable. Because the psychosis will just grasp on something as an excuse and just go with it.
There’s a lot more detail on this latter problem in Insane Consequences by D. J. Jaffe, which details just how bad it is for those suffering from serious and dangerous mental illness and how the socio-political situation leaves them (and those who happen to be around them) out on a limb to fend for themselves. The fact that the Democrats jumped on a chance to politicize this against their opponents right out the gate speaks volumes of their character. The fact a lot of Republicans clung to the salacious rumor a day or two afterward also speaks volumes of their character.
I highly recommend this book to understand the politics of mental illness in America and how damaging it is at present.
Meanwhile, there’s a man suffering psychosis who’s shown he’s willing to hurt others and he’s getting little help. There are plenty more like him on the streets with the same potential for violence of some sort and it’s all swept under the rug. And the fact that we can’t make headway to help him, to help our family member, because the system wants to score easy points, angers me the most. And I won’t say more, because I’m honestly about to go into a rather blue-worded rant if I continue.
Published in Politics
Having had a family member with schizophrenia, I understand that mental illness is just that — an illness. Thankfully, my family member was made a ward of the state and got proper care her entire life.
Proper care apparently didn’t happen here.
This viewpoint is strange to me. We observe a criminal who attempts an act of political terrorism, and fractures the skull of an 82-year-old man in his own home.
And your concern is to help the criminal.
I’m inclined to wish that our law still allowed hanging for such offenses.
I might be more inclined to call for the hanging of anyone who insisted that DePape not be medicated and/or institutionalized because of his rights.
But then if DePape were medicated etc and did it anyway, fine, hang him too.
I think the point is that he should have had help before he attempted this act.
Certainly now he should face the consequences, as should all perpetrators, once he is convicted in a court of law.
Wow Jerry, your disdain for the mentality I’ll is quite unChristian.
There was a movement back in the 1950s-1960s away from institutionalization and toward reintegrating the mentally ill into society. As antipsychotic medications became available, it succeeded in large part. “In large part” is still “in part.” There are always going to be those who fall between the cracks of any system. Was DePape under treatment? Would he even have responded to treatment? His neighbors seem to have been of the opinion that the drugs he was taking weren’t of the therapeutic kind.
The first part was de-institutionalization hopefully with medication, because institutionalization was against their rights. Once they were de-institutionalized, then the fight moved to fighting against medication because medication was also against their rights.
And here we are.
Beginning to think that your role here is strictly to troll, or worse, to “instruct,” as your previous comments on this have been just about the opposite of this, given the opposite stimulus.
Perhaps you are an bot.
The people that wanted to move away from the government providing care then (and the hospitals were snakepits, for the most part) are all hot to have government provide care now.
Go figure..
But very different help, of course. As with energy and many other things, they seem to expect nothing but magic.
I suspect there’s a bit of misinterpretation here, and perhaps I was unclear.
I’d rather not this sort of situation happen at all. However, because it’s difficult to institutionalized someone until after the deeds are done, and difficult to force them to medicate — all by federal and state laws by the way — this sort of thing and many others like it are going to happen again because the people most likely to do it are least likely to voluntarily medicate and treat themselves. Once again, this is because as far as those suffering from serious mental illness, they don’t see a need to treat at all. Federal and state policy tends to focus on the low-hanging fruit, the stuff that’s easy to address. The difficult cases are rarely addressed at all.
Don’t think I’m against punishment. Our family generally agrees that aforementioned relative should be somewhere where they will not get a chance to hurt someone ever again, and given treatment so they can function somewhat better than now. Unfortunately like so many they’re slipping through the system. They were arrested for the almost-church burning. However they didn’t follow through and no one was hurt. And amazingly they refrained from attempting to burn any church in prison, so they’re out on parole but even the law enforcement seems unwilling to rein them in. Meanwhile, our family is generally afraid of them, and can only watch helplessly as law and enforcement just can’t or wont’ do much.
And I will reiterate that the rush to politicize any horrible moment like the Pelosi attack even further hinders any drive to help these people. Instead it’s a bunch of finger pointing in hopes to favor one party or another.
DePape and so many incidents in the last several years should be a call for us to analyze how we deal with serious mental illness. Instead it’s all politics and nothing gets done.
There are still a lot of weird things about the scenario. For one, the Pelosi family should fire the security company, and why the hell did Pelosi call the guy a friend? Was he drunk or something?
Maybe. Could also be he didn’t want to aggravate the dangerous man who clearly wasn’t in his right mind.
Jerry, aren’t you an attorney?
Whether or not this is so, is the political terrorist allowed his day in court before we hang him?
Does M’Naghton still apply?
After a proper trial and application of what should be an obvious defense, then we can hang him.
The greater point is that by ignoring the needs of paranoid schizophrenics and others with severe mental illness, we are guaranteeing a future full of political violence. Ask Gabrielle Giffords, whose assailant was consumed with conspiracy theories about American grammar.
Yes.
Of course, a criminal accused is entitled to a fair trial. Crimes like this one sometimes make me wish for the days of harsher punishments. At common law, the death penalty applied to all felonies.
I would not have adopted the rule of M’Naghten. I think that it was a mistake, based on a flawed, therapeutic view of criminality and intent. I am very skeptical about the usefulness of the entire psychological and psychiatric enterprise. The M’Naghten rule was changed in many jurisdictions by statute, I think. I don’t do criminal defense work, but I think that in Arizona, we have a category for “guilty but insane,” rather than allowing alleged insanity to be a defense. I am rather jaded about expert testimony in this area (and others), as you can just about always find some expert to say whatever you want. I do not know the insanity-defense law that would apply in California.
I notice that crime rates are way, way up, since this psychiatric/therapeutic view of things took hold. People are not held accountable.
By the way, how do you know that this assailant was a paranoid schizophrenic? Others suggest that he wasn’t on his meds. I have no idea whether he was or whether he wasn’t. I just don’t much care, after the crime that he apparently committed.
Again, I find this bleeding-heart stuff just bizarre, especially on a conservative site. Y’all come across like a bunch of Soros-backed prosecutors. What happened to some good ol’ Law and Order conservatism? Whisky for my men, beer for my horses!
I do wonder whether people’s view of this particular crime are shaded by the fact that we’re inclined to dislike the victim, as a political matter.
I have zero confidence — zero, zip, zilch, nada — that the psychiatric and psychological fields can effectively deal with these problems. Are not those fields dreadfully corrupt? They’re the ones forwarding the trans agenda, right? And prohibiting treatment of homosexuals who want to change?
I really like Theodore Dalrymple’s views on these issues. He seems to think that the problem is depravity, and that the criminals he worked with knew full well how to game the system and claim victim status. I have little patience for that game.
I don’t have disdain for the mentally ill, though I question whether many people who claim to be mentally ill actually are. They seem to be misbehaving. What I see is sin, and a lot of people making excuses.
My preferred policy, to deal with violent crime, is harsh punishment after proper conviction.
My previous comments on what have been the opposite of this? When have I been soft on crime?
I was originally skeptical of the outlandish and slanderous claims about Mr. Pelosi, which don’t seem to be supported by any evidence. I’ve read one of the criminal charges, and it seems credible. Obviously, the facts will have to be proven at trial, if it gets that far.
The way I see it, this may be a mental health problem before the loon assaults somebody. After that, it’s a criminal prosecution problem.
Schizophrenia is not a sin, it is an illness. Even Christ did not blame the man possessed by demons.
It doesn’t seem like a stretch to find that if someone knows they’re supposed to take medication, and they don’t and “become insane,” they’re still responsible because they stopped the medication when they weren’t “insane,” knowing what the consequences might be.
What about if someone knows they’re supposed to take medication, and they don’t and “become insane,” they’re still responsible because they stopped the medication when they weren’t “insane,” knowing what the consequences might be?
There’s a big difference between holding somebody responsible for their actions and questioning their mental illness when they’ve been diagnosed with schizophrenia. That’s the point I’m making not what punishment somebody should get.
Jerry is clearly trying to make mental illness and into just sinful behavior. That is utter c*** that flies in the face of science. However it appears that Jerry is moving into a more medieval point of view when it comes to Sin.
Oh, I know that one!
It sounds as though you think Dalrymple/Daniels doesn’t believe in mental illness. If that’s so, I think you’ve grossly misunderstood and are misrepresenting his views.
It also sounds as if you don’t have much close contact in your life with the severely, dangerously, and chronically mentally ill. If that’s the case, consider yourself fortunate, and perhaps extend a little grace to those of us who do, rather than accusing us of not being real conservatives, or mocking us as Soros-inspired bots who don’t understand “good ol’ Law and Order conservatism.”
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Hitting a man in the head with a hammer is sin. It is not illness.
Your argument, by the way, is incoherent. Is it an illness, or is it demons? Because they’re different, actually. Your profession tells you that it’s an illness. The Bible teaches that it’s demons. This is one of the problems with the entire fields of psychology and psychiatry. They deny God, at their very root.
When did Christ excuse someone who was demon-possessed? To the contrary, He taught that we are responsible for our own demon possession. This is taught in Matthew 12:
The demon could only find a place because the “house” was “empty.” The “house” is the person, and it is “empty” because the person lacks the Holy Spirit. Jesus was making the point that even when He cast out a demon, the demon will return — with others — if the person doesn’t put his faith in Jesus.
You are incorrect. The behavior is sinful. I think that the diagnosis of “mental illness” is often baloney, maybe always baloney. I do accept the explanation of demon possession — but that, too, “flies in the face of science,” I imagine. Which would mean that your “scientific” profession denies the Gospel. That’s a problem.
I am not interested in the excuses that you, and others, present for terrible behavior. I think that this therapeutic, non-judgmental attitude is the root cause of many of our problems.
As I noted earlier, I formed much of this view from listening to and reading Theodore Dalrymple aka Anthony Daniels, a British psychiatrist, prison doctor, and author.
You’re a lawyer talking about mental illness and I guess you’re an expert on mental illness where’s I am licensed professional counselor and I know nothing about mental illness.
I bowed to superior knowledge and on Christianity of course your orthodox which is far better than me being a methodist. You’re so much wiser and more intelligent than I am on everything under the sun and you’re not emotional about things like I am your Mr. Rational all of the time.
You are supposed to do ricochet post about how you’re leaving and then you didn’t leave. I questioned your integrity because you don’t follow through with what you say you’re going to do.
And I don’t think you know what you’re talking about. And you certainly don’t have any moral standing because you can’t follow through what you say you’re going to do.
You want to make oral sex illegal. I think that demonstrates what sort of extremist you are.
Oh but hes an orthodox Christian and that makes him better than the rest of us. See those of us that are christians aren’t real christians.
The person who Jesus cast the demon out of had just met Jesus. Prior to that, where would he have encountered the Holy Spirit?
For that matter, we are told that the Apostles themselves received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. So they hadn’t received it yet either.
Sorry/not sorry if that screws up your “mental illness is a sin” gig.
Religious sanctimony has a long and robust history and Christ rebuked it over and over.
However humans being humans they’re big on embracing I’m holier than thou.