You’ve touched on a concept often referred to as necroeconomics—the idea that under a neoliberal framework, certain bodies are rendered profitable only through their containment, management, or gradual disposal.

The transition you're describing—from the "snake pit" asylum to the "corrections complex" and "care economy"—represents a shift in how the state extracts value from marginalized populations.

---

1. The Poverty Industrial Complex and GDP

As Russell and Stewart argue, deinstitutionalization was often less about liberation and more about cost-shifting. When the state "abandons" the ill, it doesn't stop spending money; it redirects it.

• The Care Economy: Community centers, pharmaceutical dependency, and outpatient monitoring services transform the "surplus" individual into a revenue stream.

• The Corrections Complex: In the US, the three largest "mental health providers" are actually jails (Los Angeles County, Cook County, and Rikers Island). Here, the distressed person becomes "raw material" for the prison-industrial complex.

• GDP and Social Failure: By turning misery into a line item, the economy benefits from the very problems it creates. A person in a crisis generates more "economic activity" (police intervention, ER visits, court costs, psychiatric billing) than a person who is stable and supported.

2. "Social Death" and Slow Genocide

The term social death, coined by Orlando Patterson and later applied to carceral contexts, describes a condition where individuals are stripped of their humanity, rights, and social connectivity.

• Administrative Neutrality: As you noted, the "management" of these populations is often presented as a neutral, bureaucratic necessity. However, the cumulative effect of being "unhoused, untreated, and impoverished" leads to what Rob Nixon calls slow violence—a violence that occurs out of sight, over time, and is not viewed as an explosive event.

• Life Expectancy: The 15–25 year gap in life expectancy cited by Andrew Scull is the physical manifestation of this social death. It suggests that while the state may not be "executing" individuals, it is withdrawing the "conditions of life" necessary for survival.

3. The Legal Hurdle: Dolus Specialis vs. Foreseeable Harm

The tension between the UN Genocide Convention and the reality of neoliberal policy lies in the definition of Specific Intent.

Concept	Legal Requirement (Dolus Specialis)	Neoliberal Policy Reality
Objective	A proven, conscious desire to destroy a specific group.	The stated goal is usually "fiscal responsibility" or "market efficiency."
Target	National, ethnic, racial, or religious groups.	The "injured" or "distressed" are not a protected class under the 1948 Convention.
Outcome	Fast physical destruction.	"Slow death" through neglect and systemic barriers.

The law currently distinguishes between deliberate killing and letting die. Because neoliberal policies are framed as economic "necessities" or "neutral" administrative choices, the predictable mass death resulting from them is legally categorized as a "policy failure" or "foreseeable harm" rather than a genocidal act.

---

The "Good Cop" vs. "Bad Cop"

Jasbir Puar’s observation is vital here: the "care economy" often acts as the "good cop." It offers a veneer of humanitarianism (community care, therapy, inclusion) while still operating under a logic of extraction. If the care is designed to be just enough to keep a person "profitable" but not enough to grant them autonomy or true health, it remains a form of containment. It is, as Scull says, a "disgrace" that is not accidental, but a structural feature of an economy that views human life through the lens of a balance sheet.