I don’t see the justification for any society sending any of the above of to any island. Such a society would soon cease to cohere, as no one would believe others had any concern for them, so no one would sacrifice for the whole. Certainly no one would fight and die for a society that punished its returning soldiers. Your blanket statement is fairly shocking, in that the mere fact of gumming up other’s lives is enough makes the unfortunate worthy of exclusion. Do you think people with cancer should be similarly abandoned? Presuming not, what is your logical distinction between them?

Personality disorders might have a genetic component, and people who abuse substances are increasing their odds of setting off an illness, so we are certainly in grayer areas there. Yet even there all people do not necessarily have the volition we assume they do.

@DNW — I have to conclude that you are not aware that mental illnesses are generally not a matter of choice, no more than having Down’s Syndrome or getting hit on the head by you parents. Most are largely genetic.

In general yes, though I wonder about personality disorders, and whether they can even be said to have a conventional etiology, as opposed to being an intrinsic part of the organism which manifests them. And yes, I am aware that numerous forms of what we call mental illness have a predisposing genetic component and an assumed triggering event or condition. I was not aware that Downs Syndrome was genetic (though you may not have implied that) or that heritable conditions were truly random. Though looking again at what you say, I am not sure that you really are assigning anything to pure and completely statistically unpredictable mischance; but rather instead pointing to some particular innocence of moral intent.

But, so as to clarify what I was talking about, let me quote myself quoting you; along with the apparent context you had established in earlier paragraphs of your same comment.

You had said:

I have known at least a couple of dozen mentally ill murderers. I only counted them up this year — never knew there were so many. NH has the strictest Conditional Discharge statute in the nation, and I have been using that and doing training on it for 3 decades. Taking medication, going to appointments, not abusing substances of any kind, and following through with any lab work are the standard conditions …

and then I quoted this part of what you were saying:

“Unless, of course, if you guys want to bring all the once-violent folks back into hospitals forever, in which case we are going to need about ten times the beds and budget we have now.”

So, we are clearly talking about “once-violent” folks, and presumably of this kind: ” … mentally ill murderers. ”

True, some conditions can be set off or even created by substance abuse.

Yes, that seem to be true.

Others [some conditions presumably] that are in some sense elective are related to choosing dangerous jobs, such as combat or exposure to toxins, that are done on your behalf.

Yes, so some people have a genetic and more or less proximate predisposition to the “condition” and some to precursor conditions or initiating conditions which result in presumably violent mental illness.

I don’t think you could sell the general public on the idea of abandoning veterans who had IED’s explode near them, or child-rape victims on an island, however.

I doubt that I could sell the general public on the idea, nor would I want to, of leaving farmers injured in the fields out to die. So too for veterans with damage to a lobe of the brain caused by concussive shock or projectiles. Nor would anyone themselves sane or mentally healthy wish to send poor child rape victims off to an island as a consequence for their having been rape victims. So, I figure you must be insinuating that these rape victims have done something apart from suffering victimization. Perhaps like raping and murdering some one else’s child?

“I suspect you have some personal story that colors your overall view.”

Other than observing how our social and political lives are needlessly crapped up by the mentally ill, not even taking into account the violent and murderous mentally ill, not too much.

I do recall that a grown retard once did try to roll a landscaping boulder down on me when I was a small boy. But he was not the kind of successful butcher of men that you were ostensibly adverting to. He should have just been kept in the house. Until he killed someone that is.

I was responding to a comment that proposed an absolute liability, though, not a “reasonable standard” one, and that was the point.

Of course not. But then that’s not the point, which is that liberal psychiatrists and/or parole boards and judges, frequently don’t apply a reasonable standard when release is considered.

“Bleeding heart liberal” comes to mind.

A “reasonable standard” would start with the admission that we have no cure for the criminally insane. And that until we do, release of them is just a societal form of russian roulette.

So too with sexual predators. Any discussion that doesn’t start with agreement that the criminally inclined have no moral compass and are predators is prima facie evidence of denial and intellectual dishonesty..

So you believe in total and absolute liability for parole boards and/or psychiatrists who recommend release of any prisoner?

I guess no one will ever be released, then.

Used to be that only negligence or failure to meet a reasonable standard was actionable (for example, for medical professionals). Now we demand perfection, or we get to sue?

Fact is, these predictions will never be 100% accurate, and unless you want to completely shut down the parole system, and also keep all violent felons judged criminally insane locked up for life in mental health facilities, then we must accept the fact that errors will be made and unless there is negligence in the release, no one will be punished for mere bad judgment or inability to perfectly predict future human behavior.

If, from that, a person wants to take the view that assassins being released are right off the table, no discussion, I see the logic of that.

But if we are discussing the dangerousness of an individual, there are some predictors, and those are unrelated to the celebrity of any participant. None are guarantees, but we don’t have guarantees for anyone.

@DNW – I have to conclude that you are not aware that mental illnesses are generally not a matter of choice, no more than having Down’s Syndrome or getting hit on the head by you parents. Most are largely genetic. True, some conditions can be set off or even created by substance abuse. Others that are in some sense elective are related to choosing dangerous jobs, such as combat or exposure to toxins, that are done on your behalf. I don’t think you could sell the general public on the idea of abandoning veterans who had IED’s explode near them, or child-rape victims on an island, however. I suspect you have some personal story that colors your overall view.

Excellent comment, you gave me a short and to the point peek into what is involved when it comes to deciding which mentally ill and potentially dangerous patients to release or continue to hold. Hinkley is a poster boy for mentally ill and dangerous. Attempting to assassinate a president because one is obsessed with Jodi Foster is to put it mildly very, very twisted.

Does he deserve release, I have no reason to question the decision. However, those who make those decisions should be held to account when their decision results in harm to others.

“Unless, of course, if you guys want to bring all the once-violent folks back into hospitals forever, in which case we are going to need about ten times the beds and budget we have now.”

No. I want to put them in a rubber boat and beach the sons of bitches on South Georgia Island or some similar rock. “Be free my children. Joy to you among your kind!”

I’d say more about how I really feel about the mentally ill, but I don’t want to be impolite.