Mental Illness and Crime

Abstract

Philosophers and members of the academic community in general often are accused of treating social issues on such a refined level of abstraction as to make their contributions to the resolution of these issues insignificant. Indeed, they frequently are said to misunderstand social problems, lacking as they do any first-hand experience with the concrete details and dilemmas that confound the politician, the judge, and the policeman. These charges are especially clamorous with respect to crime and society,s response to it. Philosophers have developed abstract theories of punishment that attempt to show under what conditions punishment is justified, but seldom if ever do they confront the agonizing perplexities involved in arrest and sentencing that those in decision-making positions must face daily. To many observers, the gap between philosophical theory and social fact is so great as to invalidate the former. Recently, however, philosophers have been attending more to applied issues, and some of them are acknowledging the practical difficulties involved and proposing solutions that take these difficulties into account. James Humber is such a philosopher, and his recent article “The Involuntary Commitment and Treatment of Mentally Ill Persons”1 contains his practical proposal for resolving some of the dilemmas we confront regarding crime, psychiatric testimony, and the mentally ill lawbreaker.