Freedom and the Mentally Ill

You can read the plays of Cho Sheung-Hui here and here, if you are so inclined. They are poorly written, unpleasant and immature. They are also focussed on rage against others, and have significantly violent overtones. You can believe the person who wrote them would be capable of this. But it is important to remember that writing these plays does not mean he is definitely going to commit mass murder. After all, if writing violent nonsense meant you were going to go postal, then James Herbert would have gone on the rampage a long time ago.

The most these plays could have been treated as were warning signs - which, it appears they were. But what precisly can be done when these warning signs are shown? Do you force someone to get help? Do you force them to take medication? Do any of these ideas have any place in a nominally free society?

The recent Mental Health Bill here in the UK has provoked debate around this issue. Some people may be showing signs of being a danger to themselves or others, but until they actually commit a violent act, then surely they are fundamentally innocent until proven guilty? There is a difference between displaying out and out psychosis and the alarming signs that Cho Seung-Hui showed. If you asked almost anyone today whether Cho Seung-Hui should have been detained for displaying the unpleasant behaviour now being reported by his peers and his professors, then the answer would almost certainly be "yes". But if you asked last week, when all there was against Cho Seung-Hui was erratic, insular behaviour and writing violent plays in a country that enshrines freedom of speech in their constitution, then the answer may well have been very different.

There has to be a balance between protecting society from those with violent mental disorders* and allowing freedom for those with such disorders. The brutal truth is that in a free society those who knew Cho Seung-Hui probably did all they could to help him and protect themselves by recommending counselling etc. It is worth revisting the basic truth that the key cause of the Virginia Tech massacre was not a failure to heed warning signs - it was Cho Seung-Hui deciding to go out and start shooting.

*And I cannot stress enough that there is a massive difference between the vast majority of mental illnesses and the behaviour of the likes of Cho Seung-Hui. The debate around the Virginia Tech shootings will always be over-wrought, but to directly link the mentally ill with this sort of atrocity is like claiming that all South Koreans are potential mass murderers - total fucking horse shit.