Sling Blade Reaction Paper

The film Sling Blade depicts the fictional story of Karl Childers, a mentally ill man who was confined to a mental hospital at age twelve after he killed his mother and her lover over their extramarital affair. Now an adult who appears to be in his late thirties or early forties, Karl is finally released after being institutionalized for most of his life. He is interviewed by a reporter, and during the interview he describes how he killed his mother and her lover with a sling blade. After his release, Karl finds work as an auto mechanic. He becomes friends with a young boy named Frank, and eventually Frank’s mother Linda. Karl then proceeds to move into the garage of Linda and Frank’s home. Karl’s presence upsets Linda’s boyfriend, an alcoholic with a penchant for abusive violence named Doyle.

Linda is employed at a retail store by a gay man named Vaughan. At one point in the film, Vaughan tells Karl they have much in common as both gays and the mentally ill are stereotyped and discriminated against by the wider society. The details of Karl’s early life begin to emerge as the film progresses. Karl’s parents were abusive towards him and seemed to have suffered from mental illnesses in their own right. Karl’s father is still alive and leads a bizarre hermit-like life. It is revealed that Karl was told by his parents to dispose of his prematurely born, but still alive, baby brother when Karl was a child. He was given the baby, who was wrapped in a blanket, and he proceeded to bury the baby alive. Karl tells his father he had always wanted to kill him over the incident.

Doyle’s degree of abusive behavior towards Linda and Frank continues to escalate, and Karl becomes very concerned for their safety and well-being. His concern is heightened when Doyle announces his intention to prohibit Karl from continuing to live in Linda’s garage. Karl tells Frank to spend the night at Vaughan’s house, and arranges for Vaughan to have Linda stay at his home as well. Karl then enters Linda’s home and has a confrontation with Doyle. Karl is carrying a lawnmower blade and announces his intention to kill Doyle, which he proceeds to do. He then calls the police. The film ends with Karl being returned to the mental hospital (Meistrich, Bushell, Rosser, & Thornton, 1996).

Much like the film, One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, the fictional story depicted in Sling Blade raises several important questions concerning the treatment of the mentally ill. An ongoing debate exists regarding the controversial question of to what degree a person judged to be mentally ill may be forced to undergo psychiatric treatment or be subjected to involuntary psychiatric incarceration. During the 1960s and 1970s, there was a widespread practice of “deinstitutionalizing” the mentally ill, whereby mentally ill persons were no longer subjected to involuntary hospitalization. At the time, deinstitutionalization was lauded as an advance for human rights. This sentiment was enhanced by increased exposure of widespread abuses that had occurred in previous times, such as lobotomies, forced sterilization, mistreatment of homosexuals, the abusive use of psychiatric drugs, and the use of electroshock therapy and other forms of “treatment” of dubious legitimacy (Szasz, 1988).

However, deinstitutionalization has since been met with widespread criticism. It has been claimed by some that deinstitutionalization has contributed to the problem of homelessness, with mentally ill people often living on the streets rather than in psychiatric facilities. Further, it has been argued that efforts to create rights for the mentally ill have prevented psychiatrists or legal authorities from requiring mentally ill persons, such as schizophrenics, to take their medications which prevent psychotic episodes and severe progression of their psychological ailments (Fields, 2013). Not only are the mentally ill worse off because of this situation, but it is argued that such mentally ill persons also become even more burdensome to their families who are charged with the task of caring for them.

The most serious criticism is that allowing the mentally ill to refuse treatment or to take their medications increases the danger to public safety. Severely mentally ill persons can sometimes engage in serious acts of seemingly random or unprovoked violence. A number of individuals who have been involved in high profile public shootings have been thought to be mentally ill persons seriously in need of treatment. These individuals have included the attempted murderer of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, the perpetrator of the Sandy Hook school shooting, and the “theater shooter” in Aurora, Colorado (Fields, 2013). It has also been argued that seriously mentally ill persons are not the equivalent of competent adults, and that deinstitutionalizing them or allowing them to refuse treatment in the name of protecting their rights is misguided. It has been suggested that just as children do not enjoy the same legal standing as adults, the same should be true of mentally impaired persons as well.

It is difficult to determine where the line should be drawn between the need to protect and uphold the rights of the mentally ill, protecting public safety, and protecting the mentally ill from self-harm. The late psychiatrist Dr. Thomas Szasz was a longstanding critic of the practices of both involuntary psychiatric incarcerations, and of forcing the mentally ill to accept treatments such as the use of psychotropic drugs. Szasz even questioned the concept of mental illness itself, arguing that states of mind cannot properly be classified as diseases as they have no observable organic causes in the same way that illnesses such as cancer or diabetes do. Szasz likewise argued that the forcible incarceration or the forcible drugging of the mentally ill was a severe violation of human rights (Szasz, 1961). Szasz’s views have been strongly criticized by other psychiatrists, some of whom have argued that evidence for organic causes of at least some mental illnesses, such as schizophrenics, does indeed exist.

The position of Dr. Szasz was that a mentally ill person should never be subjected to involuntary institutionalization unless they have first been convicted of a crime. Szasz was a staunch critic of the insanity defense, holding that mental illness should not be considered an excuse for criminal behavior when criminal intent is clearly demonstrated. On one hand, this would seem to be a fair standard in that it affords the mentally ill the same rights as other citizens, while holding them accountable for the harm they may do to others (Szasz, 1988). However, there is also the question of “ticking time bomb” scenarios where it is clear that a mentally ill person has a great inclination for violence and will almost certainly engage in such violence in the future. Does this not constitute an imminent threat of harm to others? Clearly, this is an issue where there are no clear-cut answers, and where any decisions concerning public policy will have to be based on weighing a careful balance of different concerns against one another.

References

Fields, G. (2013). Families of violent patients: “We’re locked out of care.” The WallStreet Journal, June 7, 2013. Retrieved fromhttp://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142412788732346370457849515421291958

Meistrich, L., Bushell, D., Rosser, B. (Producers) & Thornton, B.B. (Director). (1996).Sling blade [Motion Picture]. United States: Miramax Films.

Szasz, T. (1988). Psychiatric justice. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press.

Szasz, T. (1961). The myth of mental illness: Foundations of a theory of personal conduct. New York: Harper and Row.