Is “suffering from mental problems” a credible explanation?
(Be sure to see the comments below on how the excessive focus on motive has been a corrosive force in modern society.)
We’re being told that the rampaging Muslim motorist of San Francisco was suffering from “mental problems,” and therefore his act had nothing to do with terrorism. But does the latter necessarily follow from the former? A reader who is a professional psychologist writes:
The very idea that someone who takes a vehicle and deliberately attempts to run over and murder innocent people must be suffering from a mental disorder may sound plausible to most people, but is this in fact a credible explanation? Of the millions of people who have suffered from a serious mental disorder how many of them have set out in a motor vehicle with the deliberate intention of using the vehicle to hit and kill as many innocent people as possible none of whom they had previously met? Keep in mind that we are not talking about violence in some generic way but about a very unique and unusual violent crime.
Probably the best way to evaluate the mental disorder assumption is to look at it from a statistical perspective. What is the absolute number of people who have ever committed this very specific crime out of premeditated intent and not negligence? I only know of the recent instance at the University of North Carolina, although there may be other instances of which I am unaware. Let’s say probably being generous that this has happened ten times. What is the number of people in the United States who during their lifetime suffer from a serious mental disorder? Of serious mental disorders that have been in any way associated with violence the lifetime prevalence rate for schizophrenia is estimated at about 1% of the population; it is also about 1% for bipolar disorder; for antisocial personality disorder it is estimated to be 3% to 4%. The adult population of the United States is over 210 million. If 5% of the population suffers from one of these three disorders (which don’t really overlap) that would represent approximately 10.5 million people. If there have been 10 instances such as this one in which someone went on a deliberate rampage to run over and kill as many strangers as possible then the probability of someone with a serious mental disorder committing such an act would be less than one in a million, and that’s only if we assumed that these acts were committed by people with a serious mental disorder. Furthermore looking at these specific mental disorders the great majority of people suffering from schizophrenia are not violent, and when violence occurs it is usually consistent with a paranoid delusion that has a specific focus such as towards a particular person they believe is plotting against them. People with bipolar disorder are not typically violent and not murderous. People with antisocial personality disorder may be violent but this is either in the service of obtaining some external gain or because someone is personally confronting them.
Most people probably accept the idea that such an act must have been committed by a person suffering from a serious mental disorder, simply because the act itself seems so crazy from their frame of reference that they can’t otherwise make sense of it. However the mental disorder explanation is actually very weak, and even if a mental disorder were present it would unlikely be sufficient in itself to account for such a crime.
* * *
Andrea C. writes:
In At The End of an Age by John Lukacs, which I just finished reading last night, the author writes that the emphasis on motive is a corrosive force (my phrase) of our time. The dichotomy here is motive/purpose. We would do better to ascertain the purpose rather than the motive of an action. That makes tremendous sense here. Before one day had gone by, I mean he’s not even been subjected to a thorough psychological examination, and a motive is ascribed to his actions by folks most assuredly not qualified to do so. (Oh, someone heard he had marital problems I suppose… And that does it!?) And his purpose, which he himself has stated, is virtually ignored. Ignored! What this does is shape our reality—how it’s going to be handled, how we’re going to think about it, what the reaction is going to be.
P.S. I recently read your archived correspondence defending Christianity’s contributions to the West. Loved it, so handy. I have some thoughts on it to share with you when I have time. I love the ongoing course in Western Civ. that is VFR.
LA replies:
What you say about motive is fascinating. As has often been said at VFR, a person’s subjective motive for taking a particular political position matters less than the fact that he takes that position. The position has its own structure and dynamic, and will lead in a certain direction and play a certain part in the politics of the time, regardless of what the person may subjectively feel is his motive and reason for having that position. It is liberalism that fosters the incorrect emphasis on a person’s subjective desire and choice rather than on objective reality. This is seen in the transformation of criminal law for example. In the past, motive was a minor or non-existent factor in determining guilt and punishment; the fact that a person had committed a certain act was what mattered, not what he was thinking about it. But now the motive has become all. All we care about is why the person, the choosing entity, chose to do this thing, not the fact that he did it. While examination of motive obviously has a legitimate place in criminal law and in moral thought, we have carried the emphasis on it way too far.
The same applies to politics, or for that matter to jihad. The specific motivations that drive a particular Muslim to go on a rampage against non-Muslims are less important than the fact that he is a Muslim who is attacking non-Muslims, and thus playing a part in the general jihad. Some Muslims belong to terrorist organizations and are consciously waging jihad. Others just get suddenly “angry” at Britain or at Jews for their unfairness to Muslims and decide to kill some Britons or Jews. Others have “mental problems” and go on a rampage against non-Muslims. Why does one express his “mental problems” by going on a rampage against non-Muslims? Because he’s a Muslim. That’s what matters. The objective meaning of his act is that he is a Muslim seeking to mass murder non-Muslims.
People are different, and have a wide range of motivations for their actions. But, though liberalism denies it, people also fall into broad classes that matter socially and politically. The class “Muslim” matters.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 31, 2006 07:11 AM | Send