Flagging 'Red Flag' Laws
Tuesday, August 02, 2022
Over at his Psychology Today blog, criminologist Stanton Samenow argues that efforts to prevent mass shootings by making psychology-based predictions are doomed for a variety of reasons:
Some mental health professionals and policymakers think that, if identified early as dangerous, these individuals can be treated for their "mental health" issues. However, it has long been acknowledged that most perpetrators of mass violence are not seriously mentally ill. Since that is the case, what would mental health professionals treat?On top of mental illness not necessarily being a factor in mass shootings, psychology has poor predictive value and some of the laws might actually backfire:
Furthermore, if one were able to identify a potentially dangerous person and compel him to attend therapy, what outcome could reasonably be expected? These are not people who see much wrong with themselves. Their intense anger, often disguised, is at other people who slight them or do not corroborate their inflated view of themselves. Not accustomed to confiding in anyone, even priding themselves on secrecy, such individuals would be unlikely to reveal themselves to a stranger whom they were compelled to see. [footnote removed, bold added]
Samenow has little to say in the vein of positive recommendations for addressing this problem, but I think his opinion on red flag laws is worth keeping in mind.A significant drawback to some red flag laws is that a person cannot prove a negative, namely that he is not a danger to himself or others. Whereas past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior, psychologists and psychiatrists are still not usually able to predict with great accuracy whether a person constitutes an imminent danger. One commentary on the effectiveness of red flag laws stated they might lead to an increase in homicides because people would be less likely to disclose their thoughts out of fear their weapons would be confiscated. [bold added]
Image by Nik Shuliahin, via SOURCE, license.
-- CAV
P.S. I recommend the beginning of a recent podcast by Harry Binswanger for his comments on a solution (gun freedom) to and cause (progressive education) of the problem of mass shootings, particularly at schools. His discussion very interestingly follows from the observation that school shootings occur in America, but not Europe.
4 comments:
>On top of mental illness not necessarily being a factor in mass shootings, psychology has poor predictive value and some of the laws might actually backfire
One has to wonder just what is the standard for mental illness if choosing to mass murder people is not a mental illness.
(I suspect that this might be strategic and dishonest. This country approves of involuntary commitments and "treatments" for the mentally ill, at least if they're deemed (diagnosed) to be dangerous to self or others, but also disapproves of the insanity defense, even though the one cannot be valid if the other is not — if mental illnesses cause individuals to be dangerous to self or others, then . . . well, the illness is the cause, not the individual, for their being dangerous to self or others.)
>and some of the laws *might* actually backfire. [emphasis added]
Might backfire?
How could they not backfire?
John,
You raise interesting points with your questions, which ultimately back Samenow's thesis against red flag laws.
Aside from strategic or dishonest factors (of which I don't think either applies to Samenow), psychology remains a young science.
In my layman's opinion, whatever predictive value it might have under the best circumstances would be limited at its current state of development.
Gus
>whatever predictive value it might have under the best circumstances would be limited at its current state of development
And more, given free will, it will always be impossible to truly predict who will do what.
Certainly, "past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior" and we should go by the evidence with respect to judging others, but the danger is that in the name of protecting rights we can violate rights in the process by way of the evil of preventive law, which is what "red flag" laws are.
I did not mean to impugn Dr. Samenow. I wasn't referring to him, re "strategic and dishonest," but I wasn't very clear in making my point.
There's a double standard involved, in my view, between the fact that we approve of involuntary commitments and treatments for individuals with certain mental illnesses, but seem to protest against the insanity defense.
Involuntary commitments and treatments for various mental illnesses are considered to be appropriate because of the view that those illnesses *cause* individuals to be "dangerous to self or others."
But if mental illnesses cause individuals to be dangerous to self or others, then it seems strange to maintain that "most perpetrators of mass violence are not seriously mentally ill," a view that "has long been acknowledged," as Samenow points out.
That's the point of my rhetorical statement: "One has to wonder just what is the standard for mental illness if choosing to mass murder people is not a mental illness.
Here's the rub, and why I suspect something strategic and dishonest:
If mental illnesses cause these mass murderers to do what they do , then the insanity defense would be a common defense and likely always successful.
What would be the implications if all of these mass murderers were found to be innocent by reason of insanity (the insanity defense) and sent to a psychiatric hospital for treatment (and potential release if their illness is cured) instead of a prison for punishment?
In logic I would think that the insanity defense would be quite common and routinely successful, on par with the use of involuntary commitments and treatments. But if they were, then it would be, in a sense, an invitation to more mass murders. That's why I suspect something strategic and dishonest in relation to the generally approval of involuntary commitments and treatments and simultaneous disapproval of the insanity defense (and perhaps why these mass murderers are not considered to be mentally ill).
Make sense?
Thanks for clarifying.
Post a Comment