SANTA FE, Texas — Last week, I sat in this small Texas town and listened to a mother tell me how a gunman killed her son as he hunkered in a classroom closet.

Her boy was one of 10 people killed in the May 18, 2018, shooting at Santa Fe High School.

In the wake of the tragedy, she works in a counseling center that is helping the community heal.

I’m glad psychiatric care is available for the victims, but there might not be any victims if the shooter had received such care.

After all, what mentally well person would shoot-up a mall, a store or a school?

In recent years, our alternatives for dealing with the dangerously mentally ill have diminished.

According to an Ohio State University Study, there were 400,000 patients in American mental hospitals in 1950, a time when the population of the United States was half what it is today.

Today, that number is about 30,000.

The deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill began in the 1970s with the best of intentions. The idea was to transition these troubled souls into community-based outpatient care. Instead, millions ended up homeless on American streets.

Communities such as East Moline, Galesburg, Kankakee, Jacksonville and Peoria once housed large state facilities dedicated not only to caring for the afflicted but protecting society from the potentially dangerous.

And the story is the same in other states. Closing mental institutions, after all, was a national phenomenon.

If the rate of hospitalization had kept pace with population growth, about one million Americans would be receiving in-patient care for mental health issues, Dr. E. Fuller Torrey, founder of the Treatment Advocacy Center, said in a recent Wall Street Journal column.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the frequency of mass shootings has increased steadily since the 1980s, when the closing of state mental hospitals reached its peak.

Torrey noted multiple studies have reported that, at any given time, between 40 and 50 percent of those who, in an earlier era, would have received hospital care are receiving no treatment for their mental illness.

America emptied its public psychiatric hospitals without ensuring the released patients would receive the necessary treatment to control their symptoms. We should not be surprised by these outbreaks of violence.

Torrey noted multiple studies done between 2000-15 suggest about a third of mass killers have an untreated severe mental illness. If mental illness is defined more broadly, the percentage is higher. In 2018, the FBI released a report that found 40 percent of the shooters had received a psychiatric diagnosis, and 70 percent had “mental health stressors” or “mental health concerning behaviors” before the attack.

But thinking in a broader since, what rational person would commit a mass murder?

Mandatory injectable antipsychotic medication, which can be effective for as long as three months, might be something we should consider for individuals who refuse to take their medication. And, yes, we might need to consider expanding in-patient treatment options as well.

Is mental health treatment the only factor in reducing mass shootings? No. But it’s a good place to start.

Scott Reeder is a veteran statehouse journalist and a freelance reporter. ScottReeder1965@gmail.com.

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Please be civil. Don't threaten others. Don't make obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist, sexist or otherwise demeaning statements. Be respectful of others even if you disagree with them.
Please be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Please be proactive. Report abusive posts.
Please share updates or more information. We value your input and opinion.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Thank you!