next »

[anthroid]

I just don't know how we ban people from our lives who *might* do something bad.  Most people who act odd do not do anything bad, ever.  There is a particularly high intolerance in this society for eccentricity; we are a highly conformist society that seems unable to accept some odd or unusual behaviors in our fellows.  We have to turn troublesome or discomfiting or unusual behaviors into mental illness and "treat" it (usually quite unsuccessfully).  We seem unable to tell people to knock it off and demand better behaviors; instead, we chemically induce conformity.

England seems far more tolerant of odd behavior.  For instance, identical behaviors noted by observers in American and English boys resulted in very high ratings of ADHD in the American boys and "high spirits" in the English boys.  We medicalize behaviors; the British normalize them.  I'll note that murder by firearm in England is much lower than in the US.  Perhaps more tolerance for odd behaviors would mute murderous impulses in the US, though I suspect that the lack of accessibility to firearms in England has more to do with the lower murder rate.

I also will note that unusual behaviors can result in brilliance.  Abraham Lincoln was, by all accounts, bipolar (with serious melacholic periods), as, it seems, was Beethoven.  Not seeing too many Lincolns or Beethovens emerging from the US these days...

[neutralname]

  Abraham Lincoln was, by all accounts, bipolar (with serious melacholic periods),

Well, by one recent account, and that focused mainly on depression.  I don't remember any discussion of mania in it.
http://www.lincolnsmelancholy.com/

[anthroid]

  Abraham Lincoln was, by all accounts, bipolar (with serious melacholic periods),

Well, by one recent account, and that focused mainly on depression.  I don't remember any discussion of mania in it.
http://www.lincolnsmelancholy.com/

I post corrected.  Thanks, neutralname.  I thought I had read accounts indicating some manic episodes on his part.

[illuminata]

Anthroid, there is a fantastic book about the apparent mental illnesses of many famous artists, writers, and other innovators called "Touched by Fire" written by Kay Jamison Redfield, who suffers from bipolar disorder herself. I highly reccommend it.

It is a terribly fine line (and for new posters who don't 'know' me, I am a licensed mental health professional and faculty member) between indivdual rights and group protections. The ADA provides that individuals with mental illness may not be discrimminated against in employment or academic settings. However, individuals who pose a danger to self or others may be committed to mental health facilities for 'assesment', usually 72 hours.

On a policy level we're not left many good options (although I am in favor of taking bullets out of retail markets and having them be sold by tightly controlled gov't agencies with background checking capabilities). If we repeal ADA and allow public universities to discriminate against applicants with a history of MI, we loose many bright and capable and harmless students. On the other hand, we can't now ban potentially dangerous or creepy students from campus. And, I might add, supposing young Cho was sent packing....what would keep him from returning to campus and committing the same crime later?

As an additonal issue, mental health treatment for anti-social personality disorder, which is what this sounds like to me (NOT bipolar or depression) is not amenable to any currently known treatment.  Other than sending everyone with the disorder to a lock down facility for life, there's really not a 100% answer, and that is clearly not a good option.

This is one of those situations that make me thankful I'm not a dean.

[shemsheli2]

Are you wondering what my accuracy rate was, in predicting murderous tendencies over nine years, as an expert in the field?  It was 0%.  Nada.  My accuracy in predicting murder victimization was also 0%.  Many continued to offend, but none of my subjects who I predicted to be potentially extremely violent, (and they were scary kids) ever appeared on the news for any crime, violent or nonviolent, after leaving the treatment program.  I would hate to live next door to them, but they did not reoffend.  So much for professional hunches.

Thanks for making this point and sharing your experience here. 

From reading the media accounts, it's clear that the perpetrator undeniably seemed disturbed, but probably less than 0.0001% of people whose roommates think they are insane end up commiting a violent act.

SS

[sikora]

Anthroid, here's a stat:  90% of ADHD drugs prescribed in the world are prescribed to American boys.

Obscure, but still the first dog in space

[case_insensitive]

It is a terribly fine line (and for new posters who don't 'know' me, I am a licensed mental health professional and faculty member) between indivdual rights and group protections. The ADA provides that individuals with mental illness may not be discrimminated against in employment or academic settings. However, individuals who pose a danger to self or others may be committed to mental health facilities for 'assesment', usually 72 hours.

FWIW, this varies pretty widely by state because some states are "patient's rights" states which won't let just anyone send someone else in for assessment without evidence of prior harm.  In other states, almost anyone can state that another person is dangerous and that person gets a 48 hour or something assessment (I've lived in states at both extremes).

[neutralname]

Just to emphasize the point that has been made before, very few mentally ill people are violent.  Furthermore, many non-mentally ill people are violent.  I've heard that the killer in the VT mascacre was referred to counseling services, but I've not heard any confirmation that he ever actually went, and if he did, that he got a diagnosis. 

Presumably his body will be tested for medications and drugs.  I'm curious whether he was under the influence of anything like that. 

[spork]

Latest from the AP:

"The gunman blamed for the deadliest shooting in modern U.S. history had previously been accused of stalking two female students at Virginia Tech and had been taken to a mental health facility in 2005 after an acquaintance worried he might be suicidal, police said Wednesday."

Further evidence that he should not have been allowed to continue at VT.

[neutralname]

From Reuters:

"University Police Chief Wendell Flinchum said his officers approached Cho in late 2005 when two women students complained of "annoying" phone calls and instant messages from him.

"I'm not saying they were threats; I'm saying they were annoying. That's the way the victims characterized them, as annoying messages," Flinchum told a news conference.

After the second incident Cho's roommate told police he "might be suicidal," prompting them to issue a "temporary detention order" and send him to a mental health facility for evaluation, Flinchum said.

Authorities would not say how long Cho was evaluated."

Sending annoying messages and making annoying phone calls is not the same as stalking. 

[slac_vap]

This type of violence is an extremely low base rate behavior, making it extraordinarily difficult to predict.  If anyone is interested in the mathematical reasoning beyond this, you can search a number of articles which discuss prediction of violence using Bayesian analysis.

[bio_prof_]

I just want to throw this in: these kinds of occurances are also extremely rare.

Millions of people are educated on college campuses each year. How many of them have done something like this?

I'm not sure I have a point to make. I guess I'm just comforting myself a little.

[slac_vap]

I just want to throw this in: these kinds of occurances are also extremely rare.

Millions of people are educated on college campuses each year. How many of them have done something like this?

I'm not sure I have a point to make. I guess I'm just comforting myself a little.

That was really my point, too, though I was being overly jargony and glossed over the point that we might take comfort in the rarity of the event.

[spork]

From Reuters:

"University Police Chief Wendell Flinchum said his officers approached Cho in late 2005 when two women students complained of "annoying" phone calls and instant messages from him.

"I'm not saying they were threats; I'm saying they were annoying. That's the way the victims characterized them, as annoying messages," Flinchum told a news conference.

After the second incident Cho's roommate told police he "might be suicidal," prompting them to issue a "temporary detention order" and send him to a mental health facility for evaluation, Flinchum said.

Authorities would not say how long Cho was evaluated."

Sending annoying messages and making annoying phone calls is not the same as stalking. 

How about using a camera to take photos of women's underwear by pointing the camera up their skirts while in class?

[histgradstudent]

Eh. Without the Benefit of hindsight it all adds up to some strange, somewhat weird behavior, but nothing that is really a red flag. It doesn't sound like these two female students were particularly scared of the guy. Certainly you can see a guy who was disturbed, depressed, lacked social cues and all that, but I don't think anyone really could have put the whole thing together. If schools do a bad job of dealing with students with problems, we shouldn't really be suprised. It isn't what colleges were designed to do. Furthermore, it isn't entirely clear to me just what could have been done. We don't comitt people involuntarily to phychiatric care unless they can be shown to be a threat to others or themselves. I don't want that to change.  I guess the more I learn about this guy, the sorrier I feel for him. It sounds like he really did need help. Of course, the problem was that he was so isolated, there wasn't really anybody to give it to him. If he had a friend, we haven't heard about it yet...

From Reuters:

"University Police Chief Wendell Flinchum said his officers approached Cho in late 2005 when two women students complained of "annoying" phone calls and instant messages from him.

"I'm not saying they were threats; I'm saying they were annoying. That's the way the victims characterized them, as annoying messages," Flinchum told a news conference.

After the second incident Cho's roommate told police he "might be suicidal," prompting them to issue a "temporary detention order" and send him to a mental health facility for evaluation, Flinchum said.

Authorities would not say how long Cho was evaluated."

Sending annoying messages and making annoying phone calls is not the same as stalking. 

How about using a camera to take photos of women's underwear by pointing the camera up their skirts while in class?