The removal of the notion of “agency” is part of the widespread infantilization we’ve been experiencing since the 1960s. We have become a very emotionally, immature society. If/when we ever grow up, we will see a much healthier world.
Great column Adam. You can add it to your recent hit parade. I can't recall a column in the last several weeks that I didn't think was awesome. Great work.
Your column highlights what is known in the law as "the insanity defense." I won't bore you with the long and sordid details as there are historically four different "insanity defenses" that were available in various states to criminal defendants. However, today, the bottom line is that in such cases a person must establish that they are "unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of their acts." The insanity defense is does not represent the "blame game" played by people attempting to shift blame or escape personal responsibility on behalf of Mr. Redden. Their uninformed whining is also legally irrelevant unless the insanity defense applies. The insanity defense is incredibly rare, however, and it is incredibly unsuccessful. Only 1% of all criminal proceedings across the country involve the insanity defense. Of those only 25% are successful. That means out of every 400 people who claim "Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity," only 1 is successful. Anything other than the insanity defense offered by criminal defendants or their apologists is merely whining and manufacturing excuses. As a judge I practiced in front of often said to dismiss something he believed was irrelevant or a waste of his time, "noted."
I would hope that whomever did such a thing to a judge in any courtroom would receive severe consequences, regardless of any immutable characteristic they by chance possessed. I don't buy the excuse of "mental illness" in an attempt to excuse or justify a chosen course of action that includes a violent attack on another person. I don't believe excuses like claiming that he did it because of "mental illness" or the judge brought it upon herself or if he were white this would have never happened are supported by any evidence. What the facts in this particular case do show is that while things seemed to be going Mr. Redden's way, or at least he thought he might get his way and receive probation and not go to jail, he was quiet, respectful and docile. Likely even polite. But the minute he was definitely aware that he was not going to get his way he became violent. This is NOT the result of mental illness, rather it was the result of calculated decision making and personal choice. That he chose to express his displeasure at the result of his court appearance is NOT because he's mentally ill, it's because he's a violent man who chose to have a temper tantrum, and such a choice in such a man resulted in a violent act. While he may be mentally ill, his actions in this particular scenario seemed very calculated to me and therefore had nothing to do with any mental illness he might have. Certainly his mental illness is insufficient to raise to the level of the insanity defense and excuse his personal choice to engage in violent criminal behavior. He knew well what he was doing and he did it intentionally. Any claim of mental illness is nonsense and not supported by the facts or evidence. All violence is not the result of mental illness as some apologists would have us believe. He didn't get his way and, consistent with his history, he reacted violently.
People need to stop manufacturing excuses and allow people to suffer the predictable consequences of their actions. Only when people are allowed to fail and suffer the consequences of such failure will they learn and thus modify their future behavior accordingly. Whether he has a mental illness or not, his actions were calculated and intentional in this particular instance and he should receive as much punishment for it as the law allows. Our culture suffers from an appalling lack of personal responsibility, and in many of the younger generation a complete lack of understanding of the basic concept of personal responsibility for one's actions. If I could humbly suggest to God to fix one thing for us, it would be to restore the concept of personal responsibility to all people, especially those whose knee jerk reaction to every misfortune that befalls them or others, is to attempt to shift that personal responsibility elsewhere.
The science of behavior change for all species (including human) has to do with antecedents, behavior, and consequences (ABC's). What happened in this video might be examined through the lens of the ABC's. 1st, it helps to ask what provoked or caused the behavior. Often triggering situations (or immediate antecedents) like transitions (going into the court), environments (a bright, loud, stressful space), and a lack of personal agency (captive in variety of settings or a particular setting) can be a first clue of behavior potentials. Asking where & when the behavior occurred, who was in the proximity, and what was happening in the environment, can help us the find better outcomes for behavior if we don't set up people to fail in the first place. Perhaps these types of settings for certain folks with certain behaviors is too much and by managing the environment and settings, better outcomes can happen for both the person with the challenging behavior and those who have to deal with them.
Challenging behavior can come from distant antecedents like family history, genetics, and ongoing medical issues (including mental health) as well. If we know someone is dealing with chronic illness, for example, we can remember they might be more reactive due to pain.
When behavior (an observable action) occurs, using Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) can be a useful tool for thinking about behavior change for situations like this. We want to note the following: What happened right before the behavior, describe clearly and accurately what occurred as the behavior was happening, and detail what happened immediately after the behavior. It might look a bit like this:
-Mr. Redden came into the court shaking slightly as if cold or nervous. He appeared to have trouble standing still, itched his head repeatedly, blinked at a higher-than-normal rate and answered questions slowly and indirectly (distant and immediate antecedents). The judge talking was about to sentence Mr. Redden (immediate antecedent), elevating his cortisol levels & making it more challenging for him to be receptive to punishment. Instead of the judge sentencing him right away, Mr. Redden jumped onto the judge (behavior), delaying punishment temporarily (consequence), which reinforced the idea that punishment can be avoided (for a little while). This means his behavior was self-reinforcing and, in a way, successful (consequences can be positive or negative). Mr. Redden successfully delayed his punishment due in part, to those in charge of him not arranging the antecedents the preceded his behavior.
Mr. Redden IS responsible for his behavior. And the court system needs to be more aware of the antecedents that could accidentally allow or even enable behaviors that one may use to avoid punishment. Avoidance of punishment is a natural behavior, and if we understand that, we can begin to mitigate the consequences that come from not understanding the distant and immediate antecedents of any person about to be sentenced. It is hard to learn or receive punitive consequences with cortisol raised.
A nation of people unaware of how species behavior functions will continue to foster a nation of victims and mishandled criminals. This isn't about excusing behavior; it's about understanding and having processes in place that support maximum safety for everyone involved.
I'd argue it is less to do with mental asylums and more to do with lack of structure. Many need some structure in life. A job, rules, a clear path. Offshoring factories does a lot of damage. It deprives people of a chance to become socialized through work.
I was just wondering this morning how much the lack of security in employment has exacerbated the mental health problems in our society. We know children need routine and a sense of security to flourish, but what about adults? I don't know how much people have to change jobs, location, insurance, etc. these days, but it seems to be a much more common occurrence than in my younger days. It's similar to the stress of inflation when one isn't sure if there will be enough to pay the bills. Some stress is good and keeps people moving forward, but too much can make one sick. I can remember going through my grandfather's things after he passed, and he had pins given to him by his employer over the career. It went from a 5 year pin all the way to a 50 year pin.
I do think this is a major factor, completely dismissed by many. The kind of movers and shakers who get exciting new opportunities every five years don't understand many want security. A sane society helps them get it. It certainly discourages offshoring and similar tactics.
Often the movers and shakers don't understand how fast the lower- and middle-income households can run through whatever savings they have if a job is lost, although many of them found out even their investments couldn't save their evaporating dollars in the 2008 crash.
I also think we have developed real disdain for the working class. We have allowed an image to emerge of the perfect modern Westerner. University educated and working in white collar professions, often for poor salaries.
As societies we look down on plumbers and road workers.
The removal of the notion of “agency” is part of the widespread infantilization we’ve been experiencing since the 1960s. We have become a very emotionally, immature society. If/when we ever grow up, we will see a much healthier world.
Indeed. It is everywhere. Much of the quota system relies on denial of agency too.
"I claim these oppressions for Her Majesty the Queen of Spain!"
I'm not going to enable you, Adam: it's "fazed", not "phased"!
Have a great rest of your day!
Nooooooo
😂
I thought I got everything right this time! Thank you 😊
An indication of good character is one who can laugh at himself.
Great column Adam. You can add it to your recent hit parade. I can't recall a column in the last several weeks that I didn't think was awesome. Great work.
Your column highlights what is known in the law as "the insanity defense." I won't bore you with the long and sordid details as there are historically four different "insanity defenses" that were available in various states to criminal defendants. However, today, the bottom line is that in such cases a person must establish that they are "unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of their acts." The insanity defense is does not represent the "blame game" played by people attempting to shift blame or escape personal responsibility on behalf of Mr. Redden. Their uninformed whining is also legally irrelevant unless the insanity defense applies. The insanity defense is incredibly rare, however, and it is incredibly unsuccessful. Only 1% of all criminal proceedings across the country involve the insanity defense. Of those only 25% are successful. That means out of every 400 people who claim "Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity," only 1 is successful. Anything other than the insanity defense offered by criminal defendants or their apologists is merely whining and manufacturing excuses. As a judge I practiced in front of often said to dismiss something he believed was irrelevant or a waste of his time, "noted."
I would hope that whomever did such a thing to a judge in any courtroom would receive severe consequences, regardless of any immutable characteristic they by chance possessed. I don't buy the excuse of "mental illness" in an attempt to excuse or justify a chosen course of action that includes a violent attack on another person. I don't believe excuses like claiming that he did it because of "mental illness" or the judge brought it upon herself or if he were white this would have never happened are supported by any evidence. What the facts in this particular case do show is that while things seemed to be going Mr. Redden's way, or at least he thought he might get his way and receive probation and not go to jail, he was quiet, respectful and docile. Likely even polite. But the minute he was definitely aware that he was not going to get his way he became violent. This is NOT the result of mental illness, rather it was the result of calculated decision making and personal choice. That he chose to express his displeasure at the result of his court appearance is NOT because he's mentally ill, it's because he's a violent man who chose to have a temper tantrum, and such a choice in such a man resulted in a violent act. While he may be mentally ill, his actions in this particular scenario seemed very calculated to me and therefore had nothing to do with any mental illness he might have. Certainly his mental illness is insufficient to raise to the level of the insanity defense and excuse his personal choice to engage in violent criminal behavior. He knew well what he was doing and he did it intentionally. Any claim of mental illness is nonsense and not supported by the facts or evidence. All violence is not the result of mental illness as some apologists would have us believe. He didn't get his way and, consistent with his history, he reacted violently.
People need to stop manufacturing excuses and allow people to suffer the predictable consequences of their actions. Only when people are allowed to fail and suffer the consequences of such failure will they learn and thus modify their future behavior accordingly. Whether he has a mental illness or not, his actions were calculated and intentional in this particular instance and he should receive as much punishment for it as the law allows. Our culture suffers from an appalling lack of personal responsibility, and in many of the younger generation a complete lack of understanding of the basic concept of personal responsibility for one's actions. If I could humbly suggest to God to fix one thing for us, it would be to restore the concept of personal responsibility to all people, especially those whose knee jerk reaction to every misfortune that befalls them or others, is to attempt to shift that personal responsibility elsewhere.
yes agree can you say Hunter Biden.. meanwhile I think the point is people who enable from a "distance" suffer no consequences
You are a wise man, Adam. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Thank you!
And Critical Theory is VERY enabling.
The science of behavior change for all species (including human) has to do with antecedents, behavior, and consequences (ABC's). What happened in this video might be examined through the lens of the ABC's. 1st, it helps to ask what provoked or caused the behavior. Often triggering situations (or immediate antecedents) like transitions (going into the court), environments (a bright, loud, stressful space), and a lack of personal agency (captive in variety of settings or a particular setting) can be a first clue of behavior potentials. Asking where & when the behavior occurred, who was in the proximity, and what was happening in the environment, can help us the find better outcomes for behavior if we don't set up people to fail in the first place. Perhaps these types of settings for certain folks with certain behaviors is too much and by managing the environment and settings, better outcomes can happen for both the person with the challenging behavior and those who have to deal with them.
Challenging behavior can come from distant antecedents like family history, genetics, and ongoing medical issues (including mental health) as well. If we know someone is dealing with chronic illness, for example, we can remember they might be more reactive due to pain.
When behavior (an observable action) occurs, using Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) can be a useful tool for thinking about behavior change for situations like this. We want to note the following: What happened right before the behavior, describe clearly and accurately what occurred as the behavior was happening, and detail what happened immediately after the behavior. It might look a bit like this:
-Mr. Redden came into the court shaking slightly as if cold or nervous. He appeared to have trouble standing still, itched his head repeatedly, blinked at a higher-than-normal rate and answered questions slowly and indirectly (distant and immediate antecedents). The judge talking was about to sentence Mr. Redden (immediate antecedent), elevating his cortisol levels & making it more challenging for him to be receptive to punishment. Instead of the judge sentencing him right away, Mr. Redden jumped onto the judge (behavior), delaying punishment temporarily (consequence), which reinforced the idea that punishment can be avoided (for a little while). This means his behavior was self-reinforcing and, in a way, successful (consequences can be positive or negative). Mr. Redden successfully delayed his punishment due in part, to those in charge of him not arranging the antecedents the preceded his behavior.
Mr. Redden IS responsible for his behavior. And the court system needs to be more aware of the antecedents that could accidentally allow or even enable behaviors that one may use to avoid punishment. Avoidance of punishment is a natural behavior, and if we understand that, we can begin to mitigate the consequences that come from not understanding the distant and immediate antecedents of any person about to be sentenced. It is hard to learn or receive punitive consequences with cortisol raised.
A nation of people unaware of how species behavior functions will continue to foster a nation of victims and mishandled criminals. This isn't about excusing behavior; it's about understanding and having processes in place that support maximum safety for everyone involved.
He didn't have the book thrown at him until he was charged with assault of a "protected person". Some animals are more equal than others.
Given the danger judges of criminal cases put themselves in every day I have no problem with that.
Courts have rules. Not assaulting court staff being one major rule. They'd have thrown the book at him if he had hit a clerk too.
arent all people "protected" from assualt?
You would think... most states have a "protected class" law though that guarantees no leniency and longer sentences.
thanks for that.. learn something new every day
This is what we get when all the mental institutions are closed and the patients returned to the streets.
I wonder what percentage of the homeless are insane?
I'd argue it is less to do with mental asylums and more to do with lack of structure. Many need some structure in life. A job, rules, a clear path. Offshoring factories does a lot of damage. It deprives people of a chance to become socialized through work.
I was just wondering this morning how much the lack of security in employment has exacerbated the mental health problems in our society. We know children need routine and a sense of security to flourish, but what about adults? I don't know how much people have to change jobs, location, insurance, etc. these days, but it seems to be a much more common occurrence than in my younger days. It's similar to the stress of inflation when one isn't sure if there will be enough to pay the bills. Some stress is good and keeps people moving forward, but too much can make one sick. I can remember going through my grandfather's things after he passed, and he had pins given to him by his employer over the career. It went from a 5 year pin all the way to a 50 year pin.
I do think this is a major factor, completely dismissed by many. The kind of movers and shakers who get exciting new opportunities every five years don't understand many want security. A sane society helps them get it. It certainly discourages offshoring and similar tactics.
Often the movers and shakers don't understand how fast the lower- and middle-income households can run through whatever savings they have if a job is lost, although many of them found out even their investments couldn't save their evaporating dollars in the 2008 crash.
I also think we have developed real disdain for the working class. We have allowed an image to emerge of the perfect modern Westerner. University educated and working in white collar professions, often for poor salaries.
As societies we look down on plumbers and road workers.
True!