Propaganda in favor of enlightened self-interest appeals to reason by means of logical arguments based upon the best available evidence fully and honestly set forth. Propaganda in favor of impulses that are below self-interest, offers false, garbled, or incomplete evidence, avoids logical argument, and seeks to influence its victims by the mere repetition of catchwords, by the furious denunciation of foreign or domestic scapegoats, and by cunningly associating the lowest passions with the highest ideals!" (Aldous Huxley: Brave New World Revisited, Chapter IV, Propaganda in a Democracy)
The "criminalization of mental illness" is the inevitable result of the return of psychiatry's biologically-based school of thought, which now holds that individuals guilty of criminal behavior are not responsible for any criminal acts they may engage in - because such behavior is "biologically pre-determined" - therefore they cannot be held accountable for engaging in behavior which is "beyond their control." This profit-driven theory has been so widely accepted that psychiatrist Daniel Amen has been allowed to testify in criminal trials that violent defendants are not responsible for their actions because violent people "have different brains than people who don't act violently." (see: Biology of Violence, CBS News, 48 Hours, June 10th, 1999). In the opening comments of her impassioned editorial "A Shift in Care" Mary Zdanowicz skillfully points out that the TAC (Treatment Advocacy Center) which is located in Arlington, Virginia and is the leading organization championing the cause of forced "treatment", tracks the consequences of "untreated mental illness" on its website in a section titled "Preventable Tragedies." Without even commenting on the obvious contradictions of the title "Preventable Tragedies", it is ostensibly patronizing that she would refer to the countless number of "EDP's" (police jargon for emotionally disturbed persons) who are killed annually, as tragedies (such as the 37 killed in 1998 and the 30 killed in 1999, according to her own figures). A tragedy by it's very definition is so, because it rarely happens. Incidents that happen regularly are accepted as commonplace and cannot, therefore, be defined as tragedies. The vigilante killings of "EDP's" happens so often that a more appropriate title for this compilation would be "Open Season!" Would the TAC consider compiling statistics on "Preventable Tragedies of High School Students" or "Preventable Tragedies of Fired Postal Employees" (we could call them "FPE's") or how about, "Preventable Tragedies of Doctors Who Abuse "the Mentally-Ill!" Probably not!!! Because most people would realize the obvious bias evident in such compilations. And what exactly does Ms. Zdanowicz mean by "untreated" mental illness? Is that like "untreated" police brutality? In this particular article, which is slightly over a page long, the term is used more than five times. Does she mean mental health recipients who don't take medication? Does she mean mental health recipients who don't have a therapist? Does she mean mental health recipients who don't take medication AND who don't have a therapist? Or does she means people who don't know that they have a "mental illness"? Ironically, "forced sex" (accurately called - rape) is a crime. So why is "forced treatment", which is also a violation of one's body and one's personal freedom - not a crime???
Ms. Zdanowicz then goes on to list several factors that "have contributed to the expansion of law enforcement responsibility for the untreated mentally-ill." Of all the factors she lists, she conveniently fails to mention the most significant factor for this "expansion of law enforcement responsibility." That factor being: newspaper headlines such as "Get the Violent Crazies off OUR Streets"; movies and television shows such as "Wonderland" and "Halloween"; and "not-for-profit" organizations, such as her own, who promote the stereo-typical picture of mental health recipients as a danger to themselves and others. And in typical fashion, according to her article "more than one million people with schizophrenia and manic depressive illness are not being treated on any given day." Does she mean "more than one million people in New York City?" Does she mean "more than one million people in the United States?" Does she mean "more than one million people in the world?" And where are all the victims of these "untreated" EDP's? Because according to Ms. Zdanowicz's response to an online guest from Springfield, "those who are not being treated are significantly more likely to become dangerous!" [Lawyer Bruce Ennis, in his book "Mental Patients, Psychiatry, and the Law" cites a well-known study concerning the accuracy of such allegations. The study involved 989 patients who were deemed to be so dangerous by psychiatrists that it was recommended that they be placed in maximum-security institutions. A review of the 989 patients 12 months later revealed that one-fifth had been discharged and over half had agreed to remain as voluntary patients. During the 12 months of incarceration, only 7 out of the 989 patients had either committed or threatened to commit any violent acts - which means that the overall accuracy of a psychiatrist predicting dangerous behavior is less than 1 percent!] This is the height of hysteria!!! Not even the anti-communists of the McCarthy Era dared to make such outrageous allegations. The only event in history that I can think of that even comes close to this type of hysteria was the witch-craze of the Middle Ages! And yet she dares to point a finger at law enforcement? And besides that, where does she get this figure from anyway? Is this the type of blanket allegation that psychiatrists refer to as paranoia? In fact, according to Ms. Zdanowicz "at least ten" (???) law enforcement officers were killed in 1998 in altercations with mental health recipients. Yet, according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, NOT ONE officer was killed in 1998 in altercations with "deranged persons!" (One officer was slain in 1997 in an altercation with a "mentally deranged" person.) Does Ms. Zdanowicz know something that the FBI doesn't know? Or is this what Aldous Huxley refers to as "false, garbled or incomplete evidence?"
The following letter was sent last year by Harold A. Maio, Director of the Mental Health Clearing House, to the Orlando Sentinel, in response to the article written by E. Fuller Torrey and Ms. Zdanowicz, in which they allege that the 1,000 homicides committed each year by people who have "untreated" mental illness - "can be attributed to the insidious nature of these illnesses!" Dear Letters Editor: "E. Fuller Torrey states that "1,000 homicides in the United States are committed each year by people who have untreated mental illness." According to recent statistics for murders in the U.S., about 20,000 people are murdered each year. That would mean that I, a person with severe depression, am 20 times more likely to be murdered by E. Fuller Torrey, than he is by me, and that I should fear him 20 times more than he should fear me. And I do fear him! I do for several reasons: First, it is his goal to instill fear in the public - with the help of the media - about people like myself. Second, he employs the term "mental illness" as a catch-all phrase for every mental illness. There are many mental illnesses, just like there are many physical illnesses; and I assure you that there are physical illnesses we fear, and many that we do not. Third, history has continually revealed the abuses that abound in the area of mental health treatment, and each state has fought ways to interdict this abuse without success. This pattern has persisted since the "Discovery of the Asylum" in the 1820's (a book by David Rothman which I highly recommend) to the present day... Florida like many other states, is beginning to step into the 21st Century and realize that for the vast majority of mental illnesses, the best treatment is in integrated settings. That does not mean that we, as the rest of the public, will all succeed, or even succeed to the same degree. But we will have a better chance in an integrated setting. For a real-life illustration, I have been married for 28 years. I have two children, a girl 21, and a son 15. I have taught throughout my life, from the university level, to public and private school. I have been treated in the worst institutions and in the best. And I am not the "unusual success," but the general rule!"
The profit-driven hysteria generated by the "not-for-profits" like the Treatment Advocacy Center; headlines like "Get the Violent Crazies off OUR Streets"; and television shows like Wonderland (and it's "investigative" spin-offs like, 60 Minutes Page II "Call for Help", and the 48 Hours re-run "Breaking Point") has reached such an all-time high that there are now more people labeled "mentally-ill" in jails and in prisons than in psychiatric wards. Mental health recipients have a 64% greater chance of being arrested for committing the same crime than those who are not and inmates who have a "mental illness" are charged, convicted and sentenced more severely than other offenders who have committed the same crime (Hochstedler, '87). An April 19th, 1991, ABC 20/20 Broadcast entitled "Jail for the Mentally-Ill - Why are they Here?" illustrates the situation. In California, 20/20 found more mental health recipients in the Los Angeles County Jail than in any mental health facility in the nation. So numerous are "the mentally-ill" in this jail that they are issued pale yellow uniforms to distinguish them from the other inmates. And in New York City judges are so reluctant to grant bail to someone who has a "mental illness", that while the average stay for an inmate on Riker's Island is 42 days, the average stay for an inmate labeled "mentally-ill" is 215 days!!! (New York Times 3/5/98) The Department of Corrections has now become the largest unlicensed psychiatric institution in the nation. Is this a twisted attempt to solve the need for housing, or is it an intentional desire to advance the proposition that anyone labeled mentally-ill is a danger to society?
Ms. Zdanowicz continues: "Legal reforms in the 1970's also contributed significantly to the criminalization of people with mental illness. Treatment laws across the country were changed to require that an individual be a danger to self or others before they can be treated over objection." Once again Ms.Zdanowicz tries to pass the buck by conveniently failing to mention that the number one reason why - "treatment laws across the country were changed to require that an individual be a danger to self or others before they can be treated over objection" is because "advocates" like herself had engendered such fear and incited such hysteria amongst the populace that thousands (not hundreds) of people were being unjustly committed (see: The Tragedy of Sane People Who Get Put Away, Feb. 1962). With articles like "Violent Fantasies," "Madness in the Streets," and "Make Chris Take His Meds," psycho-movie producers would have a difficult time competing with the TAC's sensationalism. And finally, Ms. Zdanowicz points out that in 1974 Philadelphia's police chief "issued a directive permitting the arrest of the symptomatic mentally-ill on the grounds of disorderly conduct." Notes Ms. Zdanowicz "sometimes these are referred to as mercy bookings." I couldn't help but tremble and shudder as I read those words, recalling a time when the extermination of "the mentally-ill" in Nazi Germany was referred to as "mercy killings!" So as we hastily return at breakneck speed to the failures of yester-year, once again society's elite have woefully forgotten the most important lesson ever taught in any American high school, that "those who don't learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them!" Today it's us... and tomorrow it will be you!
"The principles underlying this kind of propaganda are extremely simple. Find some common desire, some widespread unconscious fear or anxiety ["untreated mentally-ill crazies" are on a violent rampage]; think out some way to relate this wish or fear to the product you have to sell [involuntary commitment and forced "treatment"]; then build a bridge of verbal or pictorial symbols over which your customer can pass from fact to compensatory dream ["Get the Violent Crazies off OUR Streets", "Wonderland" and "Call for Help"]; and from the dream to the illusion that your product when purchased will make that dream come true [violence will disappear and we can all sleep well at night - thanks to the Treatment Advocacy Center]." (Brave New World Revisited, Chapter VI, Page 63)
"Our society has given the state police powers to deal with folks who commit crimes or engage in activities that threaten our collective sense of well being. Increasingly, force is used to lock up people with psychiatric labels - JUST IN CASE - we might do something dangerous in the future... But you ask, don't we need force to control violent "crazed" killers? Sure we do, but not forced psychiatric treatment (which is, after all, what we are talking about). That's why we have jails and the police. People who commit crimes should be prosecuted in the criminal justice system; people should be in the psychiatric system only when they have chosen to be there, just as people with heart disease are in the cardiac system only when they choose to be there. Force breeds more force. If it isn't voluntary, it isn't treatment!" (Vicki Fox Wieselthier, the founder of www.MadNation.org)
William Norris (below right) was an American marine who was kept chained to his bed at Bethlehem Hospital for ten years. Critics of psychiatric abuse discovered him in 1814 and publicized his case as evidence of the abuses at Bethlehem. The Bethlehem staff claimed that this form of forced "treatment" was necessary because William Norris was the most violent "mental patient" they had ever encountered.
The Criminalization of Mental Illness (1900)
Psychiatric Patient or Prison Inmate? (1814)
CineMania Update (9/21/01) The TAC's "Biologically Brain-Damaged" Crusade: A New Millenium Twist on the 20th Century's Philosophy of Racial Superiority
In the wake of the Twin Towers disaster, as more and more people enter the mental health system and join the ranks of "the mentally-ill," the TAC has now launched a new initiative aimed at finding supporting legal theories for involuntary commitment and forced treatment. This profit-driven campaign will be paying law students $1,500 and $750 to devise legal arguments and write essays which will provide additional ammunition to further erode the rights of people labeled mentally-ill. And since enacting U.S. law is based on precedent, the TAC has also conveniently provided prior Supreme Court Cases which have set the groundwork for involuntary commitment for the contestants to build upon. But because the U.S. Constitution is their biggest stumbling block, any essay submitted which does not address constitutional law, due process, and civil rights will be disqualified. What they are in effect looking for, are "legal loopholes" which will strengthen their own position on forced treatment. That a "not-for-profit" organization would pay law students to research and refine legal precedents that would assist in further undermining the rights of people labeled "mentally-ill" obviously indicates that they're profitting enormously off of the stigma attached to the label "mentally-ill!" And having successfully lobbied to hold all mental health recipients responsible for the acts of one New Yorker, which culminated in "Kendra's Law," the TAC is now lobbying in Michigan for the passage of "Kevin's Law." If this were not so serious, it would almost be laughable. Their fury so incited New Yorkers that when Nicole Barrett was savagely struck in the head with a brick shortly following the passage of Kendra's Law, all the local papers insisted that a "mentally-ill" homeless person was responsible and demanded that we "Get the Violent Crazies off OUR streets." Yet no apology was offered, nor was a retraction made, when the assailant turned out to be neither homeless nor a mental health recipient.
What will they lobby for next on their biologically brain-damaged crusade? Mandatory registering at all state and local police departments for every person labeled "mentally-ill", called - "Freddy's Law" - with a nationwide website posting all our names. And is it merely a co-incidence that the majority of people who will be committed by this crusade will be so-called minorities? This is actually a unique and clever twist on the practice of "racial profile-ing," because the initial observation which is normally made in such cases is now diverted away from the racial, national and cultural identity of the "brain-damaged" individual. This person is not being detained because he or she is racially inferior... he or she is now biologically inferior! Any person who takes the time to study the 20th Century philosophy of racial superiority will discover that these are opposite sides of the same coin! As early as 1851, a prominent Louisiana physician named Samuel A. Cartwright, claimed to have discovered a mental illness "peculiar to blacks." This illness called "drapetomania" derived from the words "drapetes" meaning a "runaway slave" and mania. Dr. Cartwright claimed that "this illness caused blacks to have an uncontrollable urge to run away from their masters." A similarly discovered mental illness "peculiar to blacks" was "dysathesia aethiopica" which manifested symptoms as diverse as "destroying plantation property, disobedience, fighting with their masters and refusing to work." ("To oppress a race, and then label its reactions as a mental illness is not only wrong, it is criminal and a fraud." Dr. William Tutman/African American Coalition for Justice in Social Policy, 1995).
As late as 1994, Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray's book The Bell Curve "empirically" claimed that African Americans do worse than whites in intelligence tests, are genetically disabled and therefore cannot cope with the demands of contemporary American society. Is it merely a coincidence that the state of Virginia, which is where the offices of the TAC are located, was recently cited for eugenics based sterilizations? How much longer before they start chipping away at the Constitution? When will "The Stigma of CineMania" be banned from the internet because it's author is "severely mentally-ill" and "biologically brain-damaged?" Before resigning in 1998, Dr. Loren Mosher a 30-year member of the APA stated: "Biologically based brain diseases are convenient for families and practitioners alike. It is no fault insurance against responsibility... The fact that there is no evidence confirming brain disease is, at this point, irrelevant!" As I listened to President Bush utter these words in response to the attack on America, I wondered if they applied to all of us: "Tonight we are a country awakened to danger and called to defend freedom... this is the world's fight. This is civilization's fight. This is the fight of all who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom!" How many Americans labeled "mentally-ill" have died in defense of this country and in defense of those words? How many of our veteran heroes languish today in psychiatric institutions - only to be re-traumatized by the self-serving propaganda of the Treatment Advocacy Center? Oppression and discrimination wear many masks, but the mask of virtue is the most deceptive! David@seecinemania.com
"It is perfectly possible for a man to be out of prison, and yet not be free - to be under no physical constraint and yet to be a psycho-logical captive, compelled to think, feel and act as the representatives of the national state, or of some private interest within the nation, want him to think, feel and act." (Brave New World Revisted, Chapter XII).
Two of the nation’s most vocal supporters of involuntary outpatient commitment now find themselves staring at a $12.7 million lawsuit filed by the lawyer hired two years ago to direct their Law and Psychiatry Center at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia late last month, includes allegations of breach of contract and fraud. Named as defendants in the lawsuit are the Theodore and Vada Stanley Foundation, doing business as the Stanley Foundation Research Programs; NAMI Research Institute; E. Fuller Torrey, M.D.; the Treatment Advocacy Center (TAC); and TAC’s executive director, Mary Zdanowicz. They were served notice of the suit beginning Sept. 27. The suit is being brought by Paul Stavis, who in 1999 became director of the newly formed Law and Psychiatry Center at George Mason. The public university received funding for the center from the Stanley Foundation, which also finances the Treatment Advocacy Center and the NAMI Research Institute. The center was established to examine the social and legal implications of deinstitutionalization and to seek ways to address problems associated with untreated illness. But Stavis alleges that once his academic work ran afoul of the pro-commitment stance of the center’s funders, the suit’s defendants did everything in their power to ruin his reputation and force the university to fire him.
On Sept. 21, the university informed Stavis that his position at the center would be terminated, effective at the end of the fall semester. He filed suit shortly thereafter. "Basically, they wanted him to be a shill," Rodney R. Sweetland III, lead counsel for the plaintiff, said. According to the complaint, Torrey told Stavis in a written correspondence prior to the termination that "the creation of the Law and Psychiatry Center at GMU was done specifically to generate articles for law reviews which could be cited in support of assisted treatment in general and outpatient commitment, conditional release in particular." The precipitating event, Sweetland said, was a scholarly article Stavis wrote that appeared in Catholic University’s Journal of Contemporary Health Law & Policy in 2000. The article examined the use of advance directives for people with serious mental illness. Shortly after its appearance, Torrey and Zdanowicz began putting pressure on Stavis, Sweetland claims. "Apparently they didn’t like his impartiality." Prior to taking the position at the law center, Stavis served as counsel to the New York State Commission on the Quality of Care for the Mentally Disabled. In that role he created a 1st-of-its-kind process that gave an administrative panel the power to make medical care decisions for mentally incompetent patients, removing the process from the courtroom. In order to entice Stavis to take the law center position, Sweetland said, Torrey agreed that if the GMU Law School did not continue his employment for the full five-year term, that Stavis would be employed by TAC for the remainder of that term. But once the article appeared, he said, Zdanowicz and Torrey began treating Stavis as "a traitor amongst them" and began working to undermine his position at the university. Referring to Stavis’s allegations, Zdanowicz said last week that the defendants were "still trying to figure out what he’s talking about." TAC had been served notice of the lawsuit on Oct. 1 and had not yet retained a lawyer, she said. The defendants have 20 days to respond.
The primary motive behind SeeCineMania was to provide an open forum for meaningful dialogue. If CineMania has been helpful to you in any way, please take a moment to share your views with us (whether you agree - or disagree) on the CineMania Message Board.
