Judge: Loughner can be made mentally fit for trial

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by robertthebard My ex-wife is Schizo, and when she thinks her medication has cured her, she quits taking it. Although she's not dangerous to others, she can be a danger to herself, and frankly, I have no reason to believe the disease works any different from case to case. In other words, there would be no time, barring finding an actual cure for the condition, that he would be fit to be in society, and should, therefore, be held for the rest of his natural life. There should be no question of a trial at a later date, however. If the defence has proven that he was incompetent to stand trial at the time of the offence, and at the preliminary hearing, then his freedom is forfeit, or should be.

But your ex, unmedicated could easily do something similiar, and yet she is free to roam. Do we lock him up forever because he was not as fortunate as her to be diagnosed?

[Felix The Assassin]

Send him to the facility that housed Martha Stewart.

[SpiritWarrior]

lol, that's terrible.

[robertthebard]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior But your ex, unmedicated could easily do something similiar, and yet she is free to roam. Do we lock him up forever because he was not as fortunate as her to be diagnosed?

While the potential for that is indeed there, she hadn't done it yet. There is a big difference between locking somebody away for something they have done, and locking them away for something they might do. In other words, in answer to your earlier question to somebody else, yes, if it were my family member I'd want them locked away to prevent another episode. I am not capable of monitoring somebody else 24/7, they would need to be someplace where they could be monitored.

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by robertthebard There is a big difference between locking somebody away for something they have done, and locking them away for something they might do..

Indeed. But is there such a big difference when the issue boils down to schizophrenics on medication vs. off medication? This is my point, is all.

[robertthebard]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior Indeed. But is there such a big difference when the issue boils down to schizophrenics on medication vs. off medication? This is my point, is all.

Only in so far as what they do when they are off. Not every schizophrenic that goes off their meds goes on a killing spree. Once they do, however, being off the meds isn't an excuse, or a free pass. They made a decision to get off their meds while they were coherent, the killing spree is a direct result of that decision, therefore they are responsible for the outcome.

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by robertthebard Only in so far as what they do when they are off. Not every schizophrenic that goes off their meds goes on a killing spree. Once they do, however, being off the meds isn't an excuse, or a free pass. They made a decision to get off their meds while they were coherent, the killing spree is a direct result of that decision, therefore they are responsible for the outcome.

But again, the gamebreaker here is that he was never on meds or knew he needed meds to begin with. If he knew, and while "sane" went off them, then we would be talking about something similiar to drunk driving.

[Micah Foehammer]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior But again, the gamebreaker here is that he was never on meds or knew he needed meds to begin with. If he knew, and while "sane" went off them, then we would be talking about something similiar to drunk driving.

He was advised to seek psychiatric help as a condition of continued enrollment in school and refused. So it's not like he wasn't totally unaware of a potential problem.

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by Micah Foehammer He was advised to seek psychiatric help as a condition of continued enrollment in school and refused. So it's not like he wasn't totally unaware of a potential problem.

Yeah but again, this is a mental disorder. By nature it has defenses to protect itself. Like I said in response to the same fact earlier, it would be different if it was a contusion on his arm that began to look serious. If he sought no help and then it morphed into cancer he would only have himself to blame. But schizophrenia is an illness based on delusions.

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior But again, the gamebreaker here is that he was never on meds or knew he needed meds to begin with. If he knew, and while "sane" went off them, then we would be talking about something similiar to drunk driving.

I agree the drunk driving comparison isn't the best, but it was the closest I could think of at the time. There is no cure for alcoholism, other than abstaining from alcohol completely. The alcoholic knows if they take even one drink, it might be impossible for them to stop and they will end up drunk. So they have to simply avoid alcohol at all costs to ensure they don't become a threat to themselves or others (especially behind the wheel).

Schizophrenics are similar, except they have to take their medicine (rather than abstaining from something) to maintain their control. Unfortunately, many of them have a tendency to stop taking their meds once they fell "normal" again. So it requires outside supervision to ensure they stay on their meds all the time.

As for the "gamebreaker", I can only agree with half of it. Loughner had never been on meds before but I don't agree that he did not know he needed to be on meds. He had been told more than once he should seek psychiatric help and he chose not to. That is not lack of knowledge, that is denial. I understand Loughner didn't think he needed help, but that doesn't change the fact he had been told he should seek it. So wasn't completely unaware of his condition.

Of course, the college couldn't make him seek psychiatric help, they could only say they wouldn't allow him back until he did so. Even so, that's a pretty strong message that others feel you should seek help. Unfortunately, Loughner's parents could not force him to seek help either, since he was an adult and could make his own decisions about his health care.

So I disagree that Loughner "slipped" through the cracks. Rather, he made the choice to slide (or jump) between the cracks on his own.

Also, comparing his condition to other schizophrenics is not completely accurate either. As you know, cases differ from one individual to another. Only the more serious cases experience the auditory hallucinations (voices in their head) that lead to commit violent acts against themselves or others. Also, several schizophrenics exhibit negative symptoms (lack of regular activity) rather than positive symptoms (addition of new activities). Those that exhibit negative symptoms rarely present a danger to anyone else because they just withdraw into themselves. Others exhibit various positive symptoms that add to their behavior. In Loughner's case, these included the auditory hallucinations, feelings of paranoia and conspiracy, etc. While these led to his actions on the day of the shooting, not all schizophrenics experience these symptoms or reach that level that leads them to act against themselves or others.

So, while RTB's ex might have the potential to reach that level, the fact that she has NOT exhibited symptoms to that degree makes her a safer risk to be free in society. Since Loughner has exhibited the worst case scenario regarding his symptoms and the actions they can lead to, there is simply no way he can be allowed to roam free in society without an absolute assurance he will stay on his medication and never repeat those actions. And, with the propensity of people like Loughner to discontinue their meds, the only way to give that absolute assurance is through forced monitoring, such as in a mental institute or prison.

Left to his own recognizance, there is just no way the defense lawyers or his doctors can prove Loughner would not dc his meds and eventually go on another killing spree.