Month: April 2020

First introduced by Richard Nixon, the ideology of harsh punitive measures on crime was ramped up further under Regan and then Clinton. Specific policies include mandatory minimums after “three strikes” of being charged with felonies relating to particular drugs. For an example, a man had to be sentenced to 25 years in prison if he was found guilty for marijuana possession for a third time. These sentences varied depending on the drug but all were significant especially when comparing the amount of time given is only for a non-violent crime. Although, certain details reveal that such severe punishments regarding drugs was less about the drugs themselves but rather who was doing them. Someone convicted of possessing one gram of crack would receive a sentence literally 100 times longer than someone possessing gram of powder cocaine. This distinction was no accident. Cocaine is noticeably more expensive than it’s derivative crack cocaine; meaning that it was less likely to be used by blacks who tend to be lower on the economic ladder. With this information at hand, it becomes obvious that these policies were used to covertly target blacks since they could no longer do so in public. These mandatory minimum laws were in place all the way up until 2010. In fact, this mentality is quite forwardly expressed by Nixon domestic policy advisor John Ehlrichman with the quote, The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”.

In summary, keep in mind that the most destructive forms of racism often come in its most subtle forms.

On my last passion post, I analyzed the movie Joker along with a possible explanation as to why it recieved some of the backlash that it did. However, after desperately searching for another non cornonavirus topic I decided to simply further explore the deepr subject of the joker which is mental illness.

The first instutionalized efforts to care for the mentally ill appeared in the 19th century  with the implementation of psychiatric facilities in the U.S. being pioneered by Dorthea Dix who successfully lobbied for the creation of said facilities throughout the mid to late 1800s. Up until this point, the mentally ill were usually informally exiled and left in their own destitution with little to no support due to the stigmatization of those afflicted. These new institutions gave them a dedicated setting that included increased access to mental health care and surely an inherent upgrade simply because these people were no longer on the streets. Now, while the inception of these new establishments were certainly significant improvements for those in need; they were not without their own series of issues. The predominant one being a severe lack of funding compromising the overall quality of the mental hospitals. This resulted in multiple instances of public criticism towards these places for human rights violations and general incompetence. These violations went as far as to include patients being restricted of meals for days due to poor behavior or being subjected to physical abuse. Not only that, but the reality was that very few patients ever actually left the facility and were reintegrated into society. Essentially, the recidivism rate was so high for patients that practically they only served to keep the mentally ill from disturbing the public. This insight illuminates the general view of the mentally compromised by the general populace during this time period. They were looked upon with disdain and a burden that was solved as long as it wasn’t in the public eye. This mentality is reflected in the lack of funding along with the lack of concern over the reality that the facilities were doing very little to actually cure these people of their plights.

However, with the 1950’s came calls for an alteration in how the mentally ill were treated. A core tenet of this new approach was deinstitutionalization which called for less people being placed in asylum like facilities and instead utilizing new to the time psychiatric drugs. While patients still were placed in treatment facilities; these ones were more local to a patient’s particular community as opposed to sending them to a far off, isolated ward. This change is reflected in statistics such as there being a shift from 560,000 institutionalized patients in 1950, to only around 130,000 in 1980. An approach centered around a communal setting is said to bring greater satisfaction and happiness to those enrolled in them. That particular claim is of note considering that concern regarding that particular aspect of mentally ill care was not present before this period. With that being said, the use of psychiatric drugs and communal treatment centers were not without flaws themselves. Nevertheless, in terms of society’s view regarding mental illness, at this point in time it was fair to say they were becoming increasingly empathetic towards their struggle.

All of this then leads to the more recent era that I described in my last post. I thought that a discussion regarding the earlier roots of mental illness treatment would help people even more in understanding the reception of the Joker.