Louis Theroux: reason of insanity.

I was wondering if any of you watched this thought provoking show.
It looked at how people who have committed a serious crime because of mental health issues.
Mainly bi-polar and schizophrenia. I really thought this was going to be another show designed to install fear that there might be people walking our streets who are uncontrollable.
But Louis dealt with the issue really well and looked beyond the illness and looked at the person. Especially towards the man Jonathan who stabbed to death his father because he was paranoid. They programme looked at how the doctors treated the patients and how after release they have to take their medication daily. I ended up with a lot of sympathy for these people because they did not know what they were doing and they were beginning to see how terrible their actions were. 2nd part is on next Sunday at 9pm.

This is a sticky wicket, pf. I can't remember the statistics, but a study I read said that most people in jail qualify as having a mental illness, but the term is often used for convenience, as generally people, good or bad, are often only considered mentally ill when it's an inconvenience.
I do believe that rehabilitation and therapy are the most productive ways to help criminals, especially first-timers, rather than just putting them in the Bedlam of jail to become worse, only to release them as hardened criminals, but I'm also very aware that where you get to know the person, as with programmes like this (I recently saw a programme about young offenders), can induce a sympathy at the expense of the people they may have damaged or destroyed. Some people react to the things that caused their issues with aggression. Others become insular. The aggressors can cause enormous damage, especially to the insular, who often become their targets. When I watch these programmes I think of the quiet people, the ones still suffering in silence, they have harmed in their wake. Then their on screen charm doesn't seem so pretty. Some people are very ill to the point of not having awareness of what they are doing, and I appreciate that, but whether they can be rehabilitated I guess depends on the strength of the crime, and whether there's any coming back from that. Being sick in the first place is not that person's fault, but some people go on to do terrible things, and some go on to do good things. Perhaps we can only do our best to help those that can be helped, while protecting society if they are a risk.

I guess you make a couple of good points. This was in the U.S. and they way they treat their mentally ill patients is totally different.
It is not just one doctor that judges if a person is ready to be released but a panel.
When a patient is released they get their medication delivered daily. As to your point about people's on screen charm. I agree, but to help these people understand the devastation they caused, the psychiatrist and the staff who work with the patient can see beyond if the person is putting on a front. If we are to truly re habilitate someone then is compassion not a good way to start? Make the patient realise the pain of the victim and then learn to deal with guilt.
It was interesting to note that Jonathan said he never felt guilty about killing his father because he was not in control of his actions.
But he dose understand the pain he caused.

Broadmoor was recently shown in a documentary. I didn't see it, but my friends brother works there in some of the hardest wings - funnily enough, those areas, and their patients, weren't covered in the documentary. Like with everything, there are people who are truly Ill and don't know what they're doing, there are others who are ill, but also evil.

The second part is on next Sunday and he will be looking at patients who can't be re habilitated.
I really don't know what the answer is to help someone who has committed a terrible crime because of mental illness but it is a interesting insight.
I saw the Broadmoor show and it was interesting.

It's a tricky one for me too. I've worked with young people who were literally on their last chance before they ended up in Feltham Young Offenders - including children who at 11 had their life ambition to end up in there for stabbing someone as then they'd be left alone. I've taught 15 year olds taller than me who had to have their support worker with them at all points, students who were tagged and it was just a badge of honour to them..
But I've also worked with people who are so poorly that they really don't know who or what is happening to them, I've worked with people on drugs and seen people claim that being on drugs is a mental illness so they shouldn't be charged with offences....
I think that the US system is very very different, but I'd also question why those who have been released are having meds delivered daily when others are struggling to even be able to see their Dr....

I think it may boil down to the severity of the crime. If someone has done something really horrific, you could say by definition that person is at least unhinged, as a well-adjusted person simply wouldn't do something like that. Maybe it isn't so much an insanity issue so much as it is a morality issue, because many or most people with mental health issues react against their bad experiences by trying to do better than their experience, while others become bitter and vengeful, but I do accept that in some cases a person really does not know what they are doing. Mental illness is often the result of stress, often including a sense of threat, so someone who has cracked may lash out in a delusional sense of survival, and if there is psychosis they may not be aware of reality or who they are attacking. If that person can be treated, medicated and monitored then they might be released, again, depending on the severity of the crime, and Suzi, I guess what you were saying about some people getting meds delivered while others cannot even get basic medical treatment is like what I was saying about how much of a an inconvenience someone is to society. It is messed up in the US. I was watching The Incredible Hulk today, and it's interesting that, even when the beast inside is released, it does not kill, and that's because it's a part of an essentially moral man.
You can look at and understand the development of people who go on to do terrible crimes, and you can say they were just products of their environment, but there has to be a point where they took things into their own hands and have a responsibility for what they did, and pf, I'm not always sure, on the extreme end, that psychiatrists can be able to see behind a mask, if that person is a predator and can adapt to every situation and flatter the psychologist, but your point about compassion is right and true, if they are able and willing. Small crimes where you hear of the criminal meeting up with the victim, and they come to understand it wasn't anonymous and affected someone, can be a really positive thing.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/...22_233x354.jpg

The origional TV Hulk from the 1970s is on Horror channel along with classic Dr.who/ Tom Baker.

Yep, that's where I watched it! I pretty much only watch CBS action, the horror channel and Dave. I'm loving the Tom Baker episodes :)

It will be interesting to watch the second episode witch will deal with people who will never be released and how they face up to their crimes.

http://www.horrorchannel.co.uk/conte...oth-Blades.jpg

It's cool that Emily "bouff" booth is presenting, as she's like a British goth/alternative vampirilla!

I watched the second part and was not that impressed. Louis was chatting to people who had committed some terrible crimes. One person sexual assaulted his mother. One was caught downloading 1000 s of images of illegal porn.
I had hope that he would explore more into why they committed such crimes but it was clear these people are sick and need to be supervised.
I wonder if we are afraid to look deep into the causes incase we find out something we can't handle? Even the patients psychiatrist were just giving out medication. It would have been a good chance to really look into the problem but it just scratched the surface.

I was always baffled by how highly rated Louis Theroux was. I always just thought he was an idiot. I guess if he'd had a northern accent they'd have slated him.
You're unlikely to get any in depth analysis from him.

I thought he was "OK" until I started following him on twitter. I have never been so disgusted tbh... Someone who was just full of hate and rant about overweight people. Tbh I couldn't take much of it and unfollowed him...

I watched his weird weekends from the start years back, and there was always this assumption, presumably because he is supposedly well educated, that he was arch and being clever when he bumbled about saying "really?" a lot. I remember finding most of his programmes toe-curling to watch, and not because of the subject matter. Middle-to-upper class reviewers were always raving about him, but I just saw a simple pillock and just assumed he must be well connected to be getting good reviews.

Have to disagree with you both. I think louis is a good reporter and have always enjoyed his shows. Yes I disagree with some of his views but he has the right to say them.
I totally disagree with Stephen frys view on God. (In fact it upset me) but he has the right to say it. It is our job to argue in a well manner and opinionated response.
Louis won't appeal to many people but he is good at his job. It was just I felt he skipped over an opportunity to ask some searching questions.