The “mad” vs. the “bad” Revisited: Managing Predatory Behavior

The “mad” vs. the “bad” Revisited: Managing Predatory Behavior Ever since the Enlightenment, western democracies have maintained separate institutions for the “mad” and for the “bad.” For the mad they provided protection and treatment, and for the bad, deterrence and punishment. During the past decade, however, increasing social conservatism and the apparent failure of the criminal justice system have resulted in a series of changes in social policy. In order to protect the public adequately from repeatedly violent predators, legislation has been introduced in several states that remands those predators to mental institutions on completion of their prison terms. Challenges to this legislation, based on ex post facto, double jeopardy, and civil rights considerations were effectively dismissed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Kansas v Hendricks in June, 1997. An effect, however unintended, of upholding these laws and of policy changes leading up to them, is that they have effectively blurred the separation between mad and bad. This paper details the following: 1) the events that have led to these changes in policy and law; 2) the preparations being made in New York State's mental health system to prepare for managing such predators when and if such laws are enacted; 3) the dangers and drawbacks these changes have brought in states where they have already been legislatively mandated; and 4) suggestions for alternatives that would reaffirm the separation between mad and bad. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Psychiatric Quarterly Springer Journals

The “mad” vs. the “bad” Revisited: Managing Predatory Behavior

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer_journal/the-mad-vs-the-bad-revisited-managing-predatory-behavior-sjuQhNnm0E
Publisher
Kluwer Academic Publishers-Plenum Publishers
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by Human Sciences Press, Inc.
Subject
Medicine & Public Health; Psychiatry; Public Health; Sociology, general
ISSN
0033-2720
eISSN
1573-6709
D.O.I.
10.1023/A:1022051110129
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Ever since the Enlightenment, western democracies have maintained separate institutions for the “mad” and for the “bad.” For the mad they provided protection and treatment, and for the bad, deterrence and punishment. During the past decade, however, increasing social conservatism and the apparent failure of the criminal justice system have resulted in a series of changes in social policy. In order to protect the public adequately from repeatedly violent predators, legislation has been introduced in several states that remands those predators to mental institutions on completion of their prison terms. Challenges to this legislation, based on ex post facto, double jeopardy, and civil rights considerations were effectively dismissed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Kansas v Hendricks in June, 1997. An effect, however unintended, of upholding these laws and of policy changes leading up to them, is that they have effectively blurred the separation between mad and bad. This paper details the following: 1) the events that have led to these changes in policy and law; 2) the preparations being made in New York State's mental health system to prepare for managing such predators when and if such laws are enacted; 3) the dangers and drawbacks these changes have brought in states where they have already been legislatively mandated; and 4) suggestions for alternatives that would reaffirm the separation between mad and bad.

Journal

Psychiatric QuarterlySpringer Journals

Published: Sep 30, 2004

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off