Nah mate I just work in the mental health field and I'm sick of people relying on gut feelings to make dangerous claims about mental health that can have very dangerous consequences. Yeah, I didn't have hopes about a serious discussion with someone who admits they're not an expert but then goes on to make sweeping generalised assumptions about mental illness.
And soz I thought people with mental illness being much more likely to be victims of violence as opposed to perpetrators was enough of a well-known stat for me not to have to quote it in a reddit comment. Bit rich to complain about me not bringing up references when your entire argument is based off "gut feeling" though. But sure, here's one study you can read.
Results. Prevalence of perpetration ranged from 11.0% to 43.4% across studies, with approximately one quarter (23.9%) of participants reporting violence. Prevalence of victimization was higher overall (30.9%), ranging from 17.0% to 56.6% across studies. Most violence (63.5%) was perpetrated in residential settings. The prevalence of violence-related physical injury was approximately 1 in 10 overall and 1 in 3 for those involved in violent incidents. There were strong associations between perpetration and victimization.
Conclusions. Results provided further evidence that adults with mental illnesses experienced violent outcomes at high rates, and that they were more likely to be victims than perpetrators of community violence. There is a critical need for public health interventions designed to reduce violence in this vulnerable population.
Here's another study you can read. Let's look at the introduction and conclusion. Basically it argues that mental illness in itself is not a good predictive factor for violent crime and in itself only contributes to a small proportion of violent crime, and that that it has a complex relationship with other risk factors like substance use and being male (!).
In public perception, mental illness and violence remain inextricably intertwined, and much of the stigma associated with mental illness may be due to a tendency to conflate mental illness with the concept of dangerousness. This perception is further augmented by the media which sensationalises violent crimes committed by persons with mental illness, particularly mass shootings, and focuses on mental illness in such reports, ignoring the fact that most of the violence in society is caused by people without mental illness. This societal bias contributes to the stigma faced by those with a psychiatric diagnosis, which in turn contributes to non-disclosure of the mental illness and decreased treatment seeking,1 and also leads to discrimination against them. The association of violence and mental illness has received extensive attention and publicity. Public perception of the association between mental illness and violence seems to have fuelled the arguments for coerced treatment of patients with severe mental illness. However, this perception is not borne out by the research literature available on the subject. Those with mental illness make up a small proportion of violent offenders. A recent meta-analysis by Large et al4 found that in order to prevent one stranger homicide, 35 000 patients with schizophrenia judged to be at high risk of violence would need to be detained. This clearly contradicts the general belief that patients with severe mental illness are a threat.
The relationship between mental illness and violent behaviour has serious implications from a public health perspective. Since current evidence is not adequate to suggest that severe mental illness can independently predict violent behaviour, public efforts are required to deal with the discriminatory attitude towards patients suffering from mental illness as potential violent offenders. The role of medication in controlling violent behaviour along with the target symptoms needs to be further clarified. Also, the role of individual and contextual factors in mediating violence remains to be explored further, and appropriate intervention strategies need to be formulated.
Let's look at this study "How Often and How Consistently do Symptoms Directly Precede Criminal Behavior Among Offenders With Mental Illness?" (2) which found that the symptoms of severe mental illness do not correlate all that well with violence e.g. equating violent crime as purely a function of poor mental health in people with diagnosed mental health issues is a flawed assumption. Read the article. I'll quote two of their findings and their discussion of the implications which you might find interesting (bolding mine for emphasis):
Even with the broad definition of symptoms used in this study, only about one fifth of crimes were mostly or completely related directly to symptoms. Of these direct crimes, most related to symptoms of bipolar disorder (which include externalizing features), rather than schizophrenia spectrum disorders or depression. Patients with bipolar disorder had significantly higher average scores on the direct continuum than those with a primary diagnosis of depression.
Together, these results indicate that little or no variance in direct continuum scores can be attributed to offenders—that crimes are inconsistently related to symptoms within a given offender, over time. The majority of offenders who committed a “mostly or completely” direct crime committed at least one crime independent of symptoms as well.
Our findings question the accuracy of past distinctions between offenders with mental illness whose criminal behavior is or is not directly caused by symptoms (i.e., Hodgins, 2000; Peterson et al., 2010; Skeem et al., 2011; Swanson et al., 2008). These findings also underscore the fact that symptoms other than psychosis can lead directly to criminal behavior. As noted earlier, however, distinguishing between symptoms that are specific to major mental disorder and features that may be found among offenders without mental illness can be difficult. Further investigation of specific symptoms of Axis I disorders in causing crime is needed.
Our findings also question the current policy focus on controlling symptoms as a means toward recidivism reduction (which is a remnant of the criminalization hypotheses; see Teplin, 1984; Torrey, 2011). As shown in prior literature reviews, system solutions like diversion programs that focus predominantly on symptom control tend to have little effect on recidivism (Martin, Dorken, Wamboldt, & Wooten, 2012; Morgan et al., 2012; Skeem et al., 2011). The findings in this study indicate that effective mental health treatment may prevent a minority of crimes from occurring (about 18%, according to our findings), but would likely not improve criminal justice outcomes for the vast majority of offenders with mental illness. In keeping with past research (reviewed by Skeem et al., 2011), our results suggest that psychiatric symptoms are not robust, independent risk factors for criminal recidivism.
Here's another article, quoting the abstract.
The debate about addressing mental illness and violence often ignores key facts. Many people experience mental illnesses, so having had a diagnosed illness is not a very specific predictor of violent behavior. This means that many proposed policy approaches, from expanded screening to more institutionalization, are unlikely to be effective. Expanded access to effective treatments, although desirable, will have only modest impacts on violence rates. Most people with mental health problems do not commit violent acts, and most violent acts are not committed by people with diagnosed mental disorders.
Returning back to my !, being male is a significant risk factor for violent crime and is easily more significant than what the current research shows about any link between mental illness and violent crime. Here's one article because I know you like stats. I quote a paragraph below. Apparently it's too woke for me to argue that we should look at male socialisation and a culture which promotes male aggression. Apparently I shouldn't look at a significant risk factor and try to explain why it's a risk factor, instead I should look at someone which you could easily argue isn't a significant risk factor at all.
Females have lower arrest rates than males for virtually all crime categories except prostitution. This is true in all countries for which data are available. It is true for all racial and ethnic groups, and for every historical period. In the United States, women constitute less than 20 percent of arrests for most crime categories. Females have even lower representation than males do in serious crime categories. Since the 1960s in the United States, the extent of female arrests has generally been less than 15 percent for homicide and aggravated assault, and less than 10 percent for the serious property crimes of burglary and robbery.
And my 'equating violence with being mean' was a way of interrogating what you thought mental illness was. If you assumed that violence in itself was a sign of mental illness, I was wondering what else you thought signs of mental illness were. Is it all behaviour you find looked down upon in society?
I didn't know that being woke was the same as repeating what's basically understood by anyone with a more than basic interest in sociology or psychiatry/psychology. But I guess it's a easy way to dismiss anyone who disagrees with you. Gold star in dodging the convo and continuing to parrot dangerous misinformed bullshit though.