No Significant Relationship Between Violent Crime and Mental Illness

[Cetacea]

In fact, people with mental illnesses are more likely to be VICTIMS of violent crime more than the general population and certainly more likely to be discriminated against when the media and people on internet forums assume that every violent act is made by a "psycho".


"I hope that, once and for all, the message is clear — someone who has a mental illness is at no greater risk for violent crime. So says a new study that looked at the rate of violent crime in over 8,000 people diagnosed with schizophrenia between 1973 and 2006, and a control group of 80,000 people from the general population of Sweden.

According to the new study published in JAMA, five percent of the general population was convicted of violent crime during this time period, compared to eight percent of those with schizophrenia and no substance abuse, which was not a statistically significant difference. These results echo previous research in the U.S. that has also found no significant relationship between mental illness and violence.

What the study did find was that the overrepresentation of individuals with schizophrenia in violent crime is almost entirely attributable to concurrent substance abuse. That means that you will only find a statistically significant increase in violent acts in people with mental illness when substance abuse is also present. (Not surprisingly, you will find the same association in people without mental illness too — alcohol and drugs make people do things they ordinarily wouldn’t do. So this association is not unique to people with a mental disorder.)"

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2009/05/22/no-significant-relationship-between-violence-crime-and-mental-illness/

[cbayer]

1. Thank you so much for posting this. K & R.

:hi:

[Little Star]

2. k&r Thank You for posting.

[varkam]

3. Allow me to K & R, especially in light of recent events.

[cali]

4. absolutely true. thanks for posting this.

[mdmc]

5. k/r

[Celebration]

6. then a mental disorder

should not be allowed as a defense.

[Cetacea]

7. Certainly that defense is abused.

The deciding factor should always go to intent, yes?

[elocs]

12. Let's examine the facts about this (facts are what separate us from Republicans):

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/crime/trial/faqs.html

• How often is the insanity defense invoked? In what kinds of cases? And how often does it succeed?

Although cases invoking the insanity defense often receive much media attention, the defense is actually not raised very often. Virtually all studies conclude that the insanity defense is raised in less than 1 percent of felony cases, and is successful in only a fraction of those. The vast majority of those that are successful are the result of a plea agreement in which the prosecution and the defense agree to a not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) plea.

A major 1991 eight-state study commissioned by the National Institute of Mental Health found that less than 1 percent of county court cases involved the insanity defense, and that of those, only around one in four was successful. Ninety percent of the insanity defendants had been diagnosed with a mental illness. About half of the cases had been indicted for violent crimes; fifteen percent were murder cases.

So no, the insanity defense is not abused and it is rarely successful.

[Cetacea]

16. Thank you.

It's used far less than I thought.

[jody]

8. Then 18 USC 922 which prohibits anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental

defective or committed to a mental institution from possessing a firearm should be rescinded?

[Cetacea]

9. Yes. They are people and have the right to defend themselves.

Unless you want to argue with the science and go on (wrongly) believing that the mentally ill are more violent than anybody else.

[jody]

11. I go with science always. n/t

[Cetacea]

13. TY.

Thanks for raising a very valid point

[HereSince1628]

10. Well, law doesn't need to conform to medical or scientific

understanding. Law creation is based on majority opinion.

Severely mentally ill have a higher incidence of violent acts than non-severely mentally ill (a category that I believe includes the not mentally ill). But that's less than the risk of violence from drunks or drug users.
From the New England Journal of Medicine http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp068229#t=arti...

Considering the law you cite...

Persons committed to mental hospitals often have illnesses that interferes with their ability to care for themselves. Suicidal persons are hospitalized so that they can be monitored every 15 minutes to prevent harm to themselves.

Mentally defective is a legal category that reflects similar circumstance and typically includes someone who is deemed by the court to be a danger to his/herself or others or to have a condition that precludes his/her capacity to enter into a contract or conduct routine daily activities.

[elocs]

14. Absolutely true. Those who suffer from mental illness are more often the victims of crime.

Afterwards they will get told, "Who will believe you since you are crazy" or "You were just hallucinating". But even though there is no significant relationship between violent crime and mental illness it can and does still happen.

I think that any of us here are far more likely to be killed or injured by a drunk driver than we ever would be from being hurt by someone with a mental illness.

[Cetacea]

15. Plus, the MSM seldomly mentions mental illnss in successful people

Imagine the headline "Former mental patient James Taylor has sold out all performances for his upcoming American tour".

It's only when a criminal who also suffers from mental illness commits a crime that you see headlines like that...