The Kip Kinkel controversy

I’m scheduled to fly home from England today, and I left this post until the end of my sabbatical in the hope of participating in comments upon return. One of the most difficult questions our society faces is whether people who commit crimes and are found to be mentally ill, can be rehabilitated and return to live productive, safe lives in the community. The following was written by a psychiatrist who did his residency training at OHSU with my husband. I think he raises some excellent points.

From Letters to the Editor in the Oregonian, 5/15/07:

“Although I have great respect for the knowledge and experience of William H. Sack, M.D., I take issue with his comments regarding Kip Kinkel and the idea that he is “no longer a threat to himself or to others” after having been “successfully treated” for paranoid schizophrenia (Letters, April 29).

Part of the features of that illness are a lack of insight into having a disorder and a high recividism rate almost always due to going off one’s medications.

If Kinkel is indeed schizophrenic, the only way to ensure his staying safe is if his current medications continue to be effective and if he continues to take them, which is not a sure thing at all, given experience and statistics.

I also question if time will tell if he is indeed schizophrenic.

Another question I have is whether anyone can say that someone committed a crime because he was mentally ill. The majority of mentally ill people do not commit mass murder, so there must be something distinctive about the ones who do.”

LAWRENCE H. SACKS, M.D. Northeast Portland