Joanne Woodward has concerns about Sally Field’s grabbing the pop-psych zeitgeist with both hands. (NBC)
What better way to greet the weekend than with a conversation about insanity defenses, after all? …But seriously, B.E. folks — how do we feel about the role that pop-culture portrayals of “notorious” psychiatric or cognitive defenses play in our societal understanding of 1) mental illness and 2) its toxic relationship to criminal “justice”?
“You said a mouthful, SDB.” I sure did! I’m in the middle of previewing Monsters Inside: The 24 Faces of Billy Milligan — I’ll have a full review next week; Eve had an excellent overview of dissociative identity disorder’s (second) moment last month — and I can’t stop thinking about
various diagnostic “clusters” over the years (The Catcher In The Rye implicated in the assassination/attempts of Lennon and Reagan);
ham-fisted portrayals of certain diagnoses on police procedurals, i.e., Cynthia Nixon in the ninth-season premiere of SVU, “Alternate”;
how those same procedurals choose to portray any cognitive impairment or delay, and how much more widespread those differences are among felony defendants than neat narratives can manage;
and last but definitely not least, how we unconsciously receive everything from Sybil to Paradise Lost to Law & Order-verse episodes on rare conditions like “sexsomnia” [eye-roll emoji] — and whether these shows and movies and books can create compassion for defendants, or merely reinforce the idea that everyone except the cops is trying to get away with something.
I mean, I think we have part of our answer in re: item #4 (see: the numerous instances of cops thinking a Tazer is “social work”). I do wonder what our responsibility is as consumers. People watch and read a lot of true crime in order to be scandalized, then comforted in turn by forensic psych’s ability to identify and explain The Big Bad — fine, no judgment. And actors are seldom going to pass on the ham buffet that is a non-integrated set of personalities, let’s face it. But I wonder if some of these properties, like COPS, shouldn’t be re-interrogated and then put aside indefinitely. — SDB
This is actually a huge issue for criminologists. Just like CSI taught juries to expect forensic evidence that's rarely available in actual trials, depictions of mental illness have taught juries what certain psychiatric disorders look like, meaning that juries are now applying their own psychopath tests, and judging defendants based on whether they look like they were really traumatized or suffering from PTSD. Needless to say, this is a problem when real people suffering from mental disorders don't look like the scenery-chewing versions on TV, something that prosecutors take full advantage of.
For me, the deep question here is about the overall link between mental illness and violent crime. As our diagnostic capacities get better, it becomes increasingly clear that by most legal standards of mental defect, basically every violent criminal shouldn't be held accountable. There's a good book, "Guilty by Reason of Insanity" that makes the case that every murderer in prison has detectable brain damage plus some kind of trauma, and that violent crime is essentially a symptom of brain damage exacerbated by childhood trauma. This isn't necessarily an argument for clearing the prisons so much as it is for doing more to prevent childhood trauma and brain damage, but it does point to the problem of trying to draw a line between people who aren't accountable for their actions because of mental illness, and those who are. The problem is that our media depictions make this line *very* clear, when, in reality, it's not (and may not exist at all).
I have a veritable omakase of mental health diagnoses, so I'm simultaneously more sensitive to their portrayal in pop culture (not just crime-related) and maybe more interested, too. I see it all over social media and in media comments sections -- people definitely think they can diagnose actual humans from a newspaper article, podcast, or even a scripted version of that person. I'd be shocked if I went through an entire day without seeing somebody called "a textbook narcissist," or "bipolar woman off her meds." I understand why it happens. Most people want to understand crimes that they can't fathom. If actual law enforcement professionals and the courts are also interested in understanding it, that's not as apparent via pop culture. (Beyond Mindhunter, of course.)
I too have multiple mental illnesses/diagnoses, and I’ve definitely done things that, had a stranger and not a family member been involved, would have justified calling the cops. I wouldn’t meet the standard for NGRI, but I had an extremely strong impulse that I genuinely was not able to control in that moment due to my ADHD/possible ASD. ADHD people are far more likely to commit (and get caught committing) traffic violations than neurotypical people, due to failure of impulse control. I have 3 points on my license because I accidentally ran a red light in a town with no violent crime where the police department spends 98% of its time on traffic stops. I didn’t fight it because that *was* a choice I consciously made. But I don’t always *choose* my actions. Am I less culpable because I have extremely poor impulse control, even though I have the ability to understand that whatever I’m doing is against the law? At that moment, it doesn’t matter. Stopping some actions is like trying to stop a speeding elephant. It just ain’t gonna happen. What, if anything, should that mean in a criminal justice context?
I have a job where I often need to testify regarding mentally illness and it is difficult, as Dan said when the defendant doesn't match the TV version. For example, schizophrenics are not all homeless vagrants screaming at passersby. But it is possible that they can still be incapable of caring for their children. (Not always, of course, but that is the struggle. It is NOT back and white extremes but lots of gray.)
This is actually a huge issue for criminologists. Just like CSI taught juries to expect forensic evidence that's rarely available in actual trials, depictions of mental illness have taught juries what certain psychiatric disorders look like, meaning that juries are now applying their own psychopath tests, and judging defendants based on whether they look like they were really traumatized or suffering from PTSD. Needless to say, this is a problem when real people suffering from mental disorders don't look like the scenery-chewing versions on TV, something that prosecutors take full advantage of.
For me, the deep question here is about the overall link between mental illness and violent crime. As our diagnostic capacities get better, it becomes increasingly clear that by most legal standards of mental defect, basically every violent criminal shouldn't be held accountable. There's a good book, "Guilty by Reason of Insanity" that makes the case that every murderer in prison has detectable brain damage plus some kind of trauma, and that violent crime is essentially a symptom of brain damage exacerbated by childhood trauma. This isn't necessarily an argument for clearing the prisons so much as it is for doing more to prevent childhood trauma and brain damage, but it does point to the problem of trying to draw a line between people who aren't accountable for their actions because of mental illness, and those who are. The problem is that our media depictions make this line *very* clear, when, in reality, it's not (and may not exist at all).
I have a veritable omakase of mental health diagnoses, so I'm simultaneously more sensitive to their portrayal in pop culture (not just crime-related) and maybe more interested, too. I see it all over social media and in media comments sections -- people definitely think they can diagnose actual humans from a newspaper article, podcast, or even a scripted version of that person. I'd be shocked if I went through an entire day without seeing somebody called "a textbook narcissist," or "bipolar woman off her meds." I understand why it happens. Most people want to understand crimes that they can't fathom. If actual law enforcement professionals and the courts are also interested in understanding it, that's not as apparent via pop culture. (Beyond Mindhunter, of course.)
I too have multiple mental illnesses/diagnoses, and I’ve definitely done things that, had a stranger and not a family member been involved, would have justified calling the cops. I wouldn’t meet the standard for NGRI, but I had an extremely strong impulse that I genuinely was not able to control in that moment due to my ADHD/possible ASD. ADHD people are far more likely to commit (and get caught committing) traffic violations than neurotypical people, due to failure of impulse control. I have 3 points on my license because I accidentally ran a red light in a town with no violent crime where the police department spends 98% of its time on traffic stops. I didn’t fight it because that *was* a choice I consciously made. But I don’t always *choose* my actions. Am I less culpable because I have extremely poor impulse control, even though I have the ability to understand that whatever I’m doing is against the law? At that moment, it doesn’t matter. Stopping some actions is like trying to stop a speeding elephant. It just ain’t gonna happen. What, if anything, should that mean in a criminal justice context?
I have a job where I often need to testify regarding mentally illness and it is difficult, as Dan said when the defendant doesn't match the TV version. For example, schizophrenics are not all homeless vagrants screaming at passersby. But it is possible that they can still be incapable of caring for their children. (Not always, of course, but that is the struggle. It is NOT back and white extremes but lots of gray.)