It seems that, every time some mentally ill person does something like this, whether it's a big, splashy mass shooting or bombing or something smaller like this acid attack, you later find out that everybody around that person had known for a long time that they were uncontrollably and irrationally violent at times, but nobody could think of anything to do about it. Just like that article - the boy's own mother is pretty sure that he's going to do something horribly violent someday, but nobody has any idea what to do about him, besides getting him thrown in jail.
I suppose it's a hard problem, if you really think about it. Exactly what should the threshold be for having somebody involuntarily committed to some sort of mental hospital or something, and kept there against their will for their entire life, or until some doctor thinks they're safe again? As I understand it, it was fairly low back in the early 20th century, which led to lots of people being committed, some for various versions of being unpopular or eccentric, into mental hospitals that were real horror-shows. What we have now is the backlash against that, which might be too far in the other direction, where it's almost impossible to get someone committed like that until they commit a serious violent crime.
Where's the happy medium? Or is there one? I don't know... but it's something we all ought to think about.
"Mental health" outcomes are partly a product of social factors. I have a son who is a sociopath. I pulled him out of school and homeschooled in part to avoid having him be the next Columbine in the news. Kids who are different are often treated so badly they have no reason to cooperate with social norms. It is all downside for them, no upside. My son thinks psychologically tormenting people is funny shit and does not feel bad about it later but he generally refrains. He hasn't been consistently tormented himself, so he doesn't carry a lot of anger or baggage to fuel bad behavior, and I taught him "what goes around, comes around." I don't think these negative outcomes are "inevitable," even with kids who have significant mental and emotional differences from the norm.
http://anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.com/2012/12/thinking-unth...
It seems that, every time some mentally ill person does something like this, whether it's a big, splashy mass shooting or bombing or something smaller like this acid attack, you later find out that everybody around that person had known for a long time that they were uncontrollably and irrationally violent at times, but nobody could think of anything to do about it. Just like that article - the boy's own mother is pretty sure that he's going to do something horribly violent someday, but nobody has any idea what to do about him, besides getting him thrown in jail.
I suppose it's a hard problem, if you really think about it. Exactly what should the threshold be for having somebody involuntarily committed to some sort of mental hospital or something, and kept there against their will for their entire life, or until some doctor thinks they're safe again? As I understand it, it was fairly low back in the early 20th century, which led to lots of people being committed, some for various versions of being unpopular or eccentric, into mental hospitals that were real horror-shows. What we have now is the backlash against that, which might be too far in the other direction, where it's almost impossible to get someone committed like that until they commit a serious violent crime.
Where's the happy medium? Or is there one? I don't know... but it's something we all ought to think about.