Mental Health Screening

They can see no reasons
'Cause there are no reasons
What reason do you need to die?
--Boomtown Rats

Whenever a mentally ill person does something that hurts someone else, it is tempting to propose some form of mental health screening administered by the federal government. We need preemptive screening, goes the rationale, in order to protect people.

Ron Paul discusses why mental health screening is a bad idea. The primary issue is that such screening violates individuals' Fourth Amendment right to be secure in their person and papers. Any mental health screening databases would be subject to confidentiality concerns as well as identity theft.

Giving government power to determine an individual's degree of mental fitness ahead of some sort of licensing or permitting, such as gun ownership, could lead to major abuse. Any citizen deemed to hold negative opinions of a particular regime could be deemed 'mentally ill,' as that tag is socially constructed and arbitrary.

Stated differently, government sponsored mental health screening compromises liberty.

A counterargument is that mental health screening, while reducing liberty, keeps people safer. But it is not government's responsibility to keep people safe. The role of government is to help people guard their freedom.

Moreover, research suggests that it is difficult to predict that people deemed 'mentally ill' will act in a violent manner.

One way to limit the effect of violent behavior, such as mass shootings, by mentally ill people is to make sure that people are capable of defending themselves as they see fit. Gun control laws that disarm law abiding citizens make them bigger targets.

If we feel that government needs to be involved in the mental health-crime link in some way, then perhaps it can scrutinize the relationship between SSRI drugs and violent crime.

Otherwise, a culture that encourages self responsibility and respect for the rights of others is the best defense against aggression.