I am concerned the rights of the mentally ill could be sacrificed in the zeal to prevent future episodes of the gun violence that our country has experienced.
While clear the perpetrators were mentally disturbed, the overwhelming majority of those who commit homicides, especially by firearm, are considered mentally "normal." When the mentally ill commit homicides, the situation is more likely to be bizarre, unpredictable, especially gruesome and thus have an effect out of proportion to the frequency of occurrence.
There are now voices sounding the need to prevent future occurrences by getting the mentally ill the treatment they require. A National Rifle Association spokesman recently said, "it is necessary to get the lunatics off the streets." Though most of those focusing on the mentally ill will not be so extreme, the devil will be in the details.
It seems clear the perpetrators of these horrible acts were not actively seeking treatment. Yet, possible perpetrators are difficult to identify and unlikely to seek treatment. I am concerned that, even in the absence of prior dangerous behavior, those with similar profiles will be targeted for involuntary treatment.
Although additional resources for mental health treatment are welcome, we should not delude ourselves into thinking this will make us safe. It is extremely difficult to predict violent behavior, especially in the absence of similar past behavior.
The standards the state has in place to justify involuntary treatment require a person must have a mental illness and display behavior that is dangerous to him/herself. Many well-meaning people and agencies believe mental illness alone is sufficient grounds for involuntary treatment. This is not the case, nor should it be.
We should be wary of succumbing to the demand for greater public safety by weakening the standards that protect the rights of our citizens who may have a mental illness.
BURTON KLINGER
Rensselaer