The idea that mental illness is intrinsically linked to "danger" isn't a single "Eureka" moment in history. Instead, it’s a legal and social construct that evolved as we moved from viewing madness as a spiritual issue to a state-managed medical one.
Historically, the shift happened in three major waves.
1. Ancient & Medieval: The "Family Burden" Era
In antiquity and the Middle Ages, there was no formal "danger to self or others" doctrine. Mental distress was often seen through a religious lens (demonic possession or divine punishment) or a biological one (the Four Humors).
Social Control: Because there were no state-run asylums, the "danger" was managed privately. Families were legally responsible for their relatives.
Roman Law: Under the Corpus Juris Civilis, a person deemed furiosus (furious/insane) was assigned a curator. The focus wasn't on public safety, but on protecting the individual’s property and preventing them from harming the family’s reputation or assets.
2. The 17th & 18th Centuries: The "Great Confinement"
This is where the "danger to others" narrative really took root. As cities grew, "madness" became a public nuisance rather than a private family matter.
Police Power: Governments began using "police power" to clear the streets of the "undesirable." The focus shifted from healing to social order.
The Vagrancy Acts: In 1744, England’s Vagrancy Act explicitly allowed for the apprehension of people who were "disturbed in their town and senses" and might be "dangerous to be left abroad."
The 1792 Watershed: In revolutionary France, Philippe Pinel famously "unchained" patients at the Bicêtre Hospital.
While this was a humanitarian move, it also codified the idea that the state must classify who is "manageable" and who is "dangerous."
3. The 19th Century: The Medicalization of Danger
The 1800s saw the birth of Forensic Psychiatry. This is when the "danger" became a formal medical diagnosis used to justify involuntary commitment.
The M'Naghten Rule (1843):
After Daniel M'Naghten tried to assassinate the British Prime Minister, the legal system established a standard for "insanity" based on whether a person understood the nature of their actions. This cemented the link between "mental illness" and "potential violence" in the public imagination. The "Danger to Self" shift: While "danger to others" was about public safety, "danger to self" (suicidality) became a major justification for commitment later in the 19th century as medicine replaced the church in supervising morality and life-preservation.
A Note on the "Modern" View
It’s worth noting that the specific phrase "danger to self or others" became the gold standard for involuntary commitment in the U.S. and Europe primarily in the 1960s and 70s. This was part of the de-institutionalization movement, intended, in part, to restrict the state’s power—essentially saying you can't lock someone up just for being "unwell," only if they are demonstrably dangerous.
Ironically, while meant, in part, to protect civil liberties, it reinforced the stigma that the only "valid" reason to talk about mental illness is in the context of violence.
Great question — this gets into the legal logic behind how insanity was understood in Ancient Rome and later codified in the Corpus Juris Civilis under Emperor Justinian I (6th century CE).
The Roman approach was fundamentally about status, capacity, and property, not public dangerousness in the modern sense.
1. What Was a Furiosus?
In Roman legal terminology:
-
Furiosus = someone considered legally insane, out of their mind, or incapable of rational self-governance.
-
The key issue was lack of reason (ratio).
-
Legal incapacity flowed from impaired rational judgment.
Roman law distinguished between:
-
Someone permanently insane (furiosus)
-
Someone temporarily mad (mente captus)
-
Someone with lucid intervals (during which their acts could be valid)
The emphasis was on capacity to transact, not on violence.
2. The Role of the Curator
A curator was appointed to manage the affairs of a person deemed incapable.
Important points:
-
The curator controlled property and contracts.
-
The insane person could not validly enter into binding agreements.
-
The curator’s role resembled modern guardianship.
This applied especially when:
-
The individual was sui iuris (legally independent adult male)
-
There was no paterfamilias above them
The goal was to prevent economic damage — especially alienation of land, slaves, dowries, or inheritance rights.
3. Why Property Was Central
Roman society was structured around:
-
Family lineage (gens)
-
Inheritance continuity
-
Preservation of estates
-
Social honor tied to property stability
An irrational head of household could:
-
Sell land irresponsibly
-
Squander inheritance
-
Contract ruinous debts
-
Damage marriage alliances
This was seen as a threat to the family unit, not primarily to public safety.
4. Criminal Responsibility
Roman law generally held that:
-
A furiosus was not criminally liable.
-
“Madness itself is punishment enough” appears in Roman legal reasoning.
-
Criminal responsibility required intention (dolus).
So the law reduced punishment because reason was absent — another sign that incapacity, not dangerousness, was the central concept.
5. Public Order vs. Private Harm
Romans certainly recognized that a mad person might act violently.
However:
-
There was no systematic doctrine that insanity = public danger.
-
Confinement was usually domestic (within household control).
-
State intervention focused more on guardianship than institutionalization.
Large-scale custodial confinement for public safety (like early modern asylums) did not exist in Roman law as a general solution.
6. Comparison to Later Law
The contrast with later periods is striking:
-
In early modern Europe, confinement became linked to social control.
-
By the 19th–20th centuries, dangerousness became the central legal threshold.
-
Roman law focused instead on legal capacity and patrimonial stability.
In short, the Roman legal category of furiosus was primarily about protecting property and preserving family continuity.
No comments:
Post a Comment