ALPERN AT LARGE-The horrific multiple homicides we just experienced in Santa Barbara, the issue of untreated vets with PTSD and other mental disorders, and questions surrounding the rights of the mentally ill and of society, have now become the central issues for many Americans to grapple with. Two main obstacles stand in the way of confronting these issues--political correctness, and our own lack of resolve to do the right thing.
We are a society that--as with all successful societies--must remain based on BOTH rights AND responsibilities, on BOTH our precious freedoms AND our civic duties.
Part of all this is recognizing unpleasant but unavoidable and unassailable truths--there are those who are mentally ill and seek help, and then there are those who are mentally ill and are a danger primarily to themselves, and then there are those who are mentally ill and a danger to society in general.
While determining who or what is to blame for the Santa Barbara killing spree (the killer's family, guns, popular culture, lack of mental health laws like Laura's Law that empowers counties to take charge of court-ordered mental health treatment if they enact certain outpatient programs), it is a positive sign that our society is taking a first critical step by not enumerating the killer as one of the victims.
To clarify where we cross the lines between "mentally ill" and "sociopath", or where we cross the lines between "mentally ill" and "evil", we must acknowledge the need to differentiate between the thoughts and actions of mentally-ill individuals that are ego-dystonic (thoughts or actions that are repugnant to a given person) to some, and which are ego-syntonic (thoughts or actions that are acceptable) to others.
To not address this critical "ego-dystonic" versus "ego-syntonic" distinction is to presume that ALL mentally ill individuals are dangers to themselves and/or society, and that locking them all up is therefore necessary. Those mentally ill who are troubled with violent thoughts are very different than those comfortable with them.
Ditto for the need to address what a "sociopath" is, and what a "personality disorder" is, versus other, more treatable mental health diseases such as mood or thought disorders (like bipolar, depressive, anxiety and schizophrenic diseases that require medication, counseling and sometimes hospitalization).
Fortunately, our legal system focuses more on whether a person committing a criminal act knows the difference between good and evil than having some mental health diagnosis.
In the same vein, the Supreme Court recently acknowledged that IQ tests alone do not create an arbitrary determination of who is competent or incompetent to stand trial--again, the knowledge of what is good or evil, lawful or unlawful, is the most important focus in determining whether a person knowingly committed an act of evil.
And what is "evil"? There are some, particularly among those who embrace being "politically correct"--and who expect the rest of us to embrace being "politically correct" as well--who will determine that "evil" is a relevant term.
However, a more objective determination of what constitutes "evil" is when one puts his/her own personal desires above the basic needs of others, and does so to an extreme that is without doubt unbalanced. Rape, aggravated assault, killing and the like are all performed to achieve one's desires without thought for the existence of others' physical and/or emotional well-being.
An "evil" act can therefore be objectively concluded to occur when one commits Malignant Narcissism, and is the Ultimate Objectification of other human beings (treating them like objects, rather than as humans with vital and precious needs as important as the needs of the one committing the "evil" act).
So where does this leave us with the Santa Barbara killer, a young man who felt it perfectly reasonable to stab, run over and shoot innocent people because it was his manifest destiny to achieve physical intimacy with women?
He was an individual who rejected mental health intervention, and one whose actions and thoughts appear entirely "ego-syntonic", so it's not hard to conclude that he had knowingly and willingly crossed into the realm of what a reasonable society should call "evil".
Furthermore, his antisocial attitudes, antisocial behavior and a lack of conscience clearly allowed him to fit the definition of a sociopath--and he committed acts that most mentally ill individuals could never, and would never, do.
This is critical for us to all understand, because we have our own ability to do "evil" in our lives, and our actions for which we feel the most shame (or at least we SHOULD feel the most shame if we are not truly "evil") is where we placed our own needs and wants so high in our actions that we allowed others to get hurt.
Using old-fashioned terminology, there's a difference between being a sinner and being innately evil.
Are young men commonly misogynistic and resentful of beautiful girls who won't give them the time of day, and are they jealous of those guys who always get the girl? Of course--where does the popularity of the movie "Revenge of the Nerds" and so many other movies come from?
But would the common resentment of lonely young men lead them to doing physical harm to others, as did the young man in Santa Barbara? Other than fleeting thoughts when they are most despondent, neither "sane" nor "mentally ill" young men would never do such a thing--in fact, many if not most would rather themselves die than commit such heinous acts.
Which is not to say that the Son of Sam killer (Berkowitz), or the attempted assassin of Ronald Reagan (Hinckley) don't comprise a very real element among the mentally ill who COULD do "evil" things without medication, yet would likely NOT do them with proper medication, counseling and supervision.
Which is also why Berkowitz and Hinckley are very different individuals than the young man who killed so many innocents in Santa Barbara--he was a young man who crossed so many lines, and did not appear to necessarily want or be affected much by mental health intervention, that he may indeed be referred to as a "monster", as "evil", and who certainly is one whose name we need not mention.
Does the family of the killer deserve some sympathy? Probably--they did appear concerned and motivated to warn the authorities about their son.
And with the understanding that up to approximately 1 in 4 adults suffers from a diagnosable mental disorder in any given year, the need to question our own mental illness, and that of loved ones, is as reasonable as it is to distinguish where some "just choose evil".
Ditto for the willingness of so many Americans to take medication (side effects and all) and undergo counseling so that they won't hurt themselves--and especially not hurt others--because they do not want to follow a path that could lead to the pain and suffering of others.
By and large, good men and women just won't choose evil--"sane" or otherwise. PTSD and the mental health issues suffered by veterans of wars are the result of troubled souls who've seen and done things that violate their personal beliefs and ethics ... and so hence War is Hell.
But killing those innocents was decidedly NOT hell for the Santa Barbara killer. Frankly, it appeared to be more like heaven for this altered individual, whose now-well-published thoughts and preparatory actions reveal a person quite different from the harmless but troubled schizophrenic talking to himself alone on a sidewalk.
The debate over gun control is a worthy one for our modern times, but in the Santa Barbara tragedy this debate should be (for the most part) relegated behind the greater issue of what our society can and cannot do with this individual--who killed both with guns and with other lethal weapons, such as knives and a car.
The issues surrounding the case of the Santa Barbara killer must be focused more on the rights and responsibilities of society.
Such as the right and responsibility of society to place a physical hold on an unbalanced individual who has become a sociopath.
And the right and responsibility of society to use Laura's Law and other legislation to confine and force treatment to individuals who will harm others if such intervention is not performed.
And the right and responsibility of society to recognize the high recidivism rate of the mentally ill and not presume they have the same rights and capability to determine their treatment when they are off their medication.
And the right and responsibility of society to pay for the treatment, supervision and boarding of the mentally ill so that these patients can live healthy and fulfilling lives.
And the right and responsibility of society to recognize that an untreated and unstable mentally ill patient does not have the "right" to wither away on the streets when he/she is not medicated and cared for.
And, most of all, the right and responsibility of society to be educated and to recognize what Malignant Narcissism is, and to legally and appropriately intervene when someone who is either "mentally ill" or "sane" adheres to "evil" thoughts and actions...and to so intervene BEFORE a tragedy such as that which happened in Santa Barbara might again occur.
(Ken Alpern is a Westside Village Zone Director and Boardmember of the Mar Vista Community Council (MVCC), previously co-chaired its Planning and Outreach Committees, and currently is Co-Chair of its MVCC Transportation/Infrastructure Committee. He is co-chair of the CD11 Transportation Advisory Committee and chairs the nonprofit Transit Coalition, and can be reached at [email protected] This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . He also does regular commentary on the Mark Isler Radio Show on AM 870, and co-chairs the grassroots Friends of the Green Line at www.fogl.us . The views expressed in this article are solely those of Mr. Alpern.)
-cw
Tags:
CityWatch
Vol 12 Issue 44
Pub: May 30, 2014