Bestselling Author and Mental Health Advocate
My new non-fiction book, The Serial Killer Whisperer, is being published today, which means that after months of waiting and hard work, the book will go on sale and be judged by professional critics and readers.
I was thrilled that my morning began with two strong endorsements.
With tears in his eyes and his voice showing emotion, Carl Elliott Jr., told me last week that he hoped my book, The Serial Killer Whisperer, would finally be enough to get Florida’s governor to schedule the execution of serial killer David Gore.
Gore abducted, raped, and murdered Elliott’s daughter, Lynn, age 17, in Vero Beach. He has been on death row for nearly thirty years. 
I certainly did not write my book to prompt the death of anyone, including Gore. But my book has re-ignited interest in his case and is stirring strong emotions in Vero Beach.
The book describes the plight of Tony Ciaglia, who was hit in the skull by a speeding jet ski when he was 15 years old. He died three times en route to the hospital but was revived. After several weeks in a coma, Ciaglia awoke much different from the carefree, happy, and popular teen he had been. Filled with rage, often uncontrollable, and suffering from damage to the front lobe of his brain, Ciaglia spent much of the next several years under a self-imposed house arrest. At times, he was suicidal. Bored and aimless, he needed a hobby and by chance he began writing serial killers. His psychiatric problems mimicked those of the killers and he was able to befriend many of them and get them to share their inner-most thoughts with him. Today, he tries to help the police with his ability to communicate with killers.
Since launching this blog on January 1, 2010, I have written 184 posts. In an average month, between 2,000 to 3,000 readers check to see what I have posted. When a blog is especially controversial that number can jump to 6,000. Readers have posted 1,000 comments. Thank you for your interest.
I started this blog after several New York publishers rejected an idea for a book that I called HOPE. I wanted to write about successful mental health treatment programs that were helping people recover. Unfortunately, the editors who heard my pitch were not interested in a book about success stories. I began this blog because I wanted to continue writing about issues, mostly mental health related, that are important to me, especially hope.
The start of a New Year is a good time for reflection – so I have reviewed my 184 posts and picked out a handful to highlight. If you didn’t read them when they were originally posted, perhaps you will glance at them now.
From our house to your's where every you may be-- Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
Last week, I explained why I believe the “dangerousness” criteria is an impediment to getting people the help that they need. One reason why civil rights activists pushed hard in the 1970s to get “dangerousness” established was because forcing someone into a state mental hospital was a draconion move. Being committed was often a de facto life prison sentence. Barbaric treatments, such as forced lobotomies, destroyed lives.
What happens today if someone is forcibly committed?
In Virginia, on average, you will spend five days or less in a locked mental ward. Your “treatment” will be medication and, if you are willing, therapy in groups where the topic will center almost exclusively on the importance of taking medication. After your five days end, you will be discharged. If you are fortunate, you will be linked to community services. But there’s a good chance that you will be released without any serious follow up.
In short, your life will have been disrupted — not only by your illness — but by the state. Yet, little will be done to actually help you recover from your disorder or help you better handle your symptoms.
This is not meaningful treatment. It explains why some critics are so adamant about clinging to the “dangerousness” criteria. Deep down, they do not believe involuntary commitments benefit anyone. Click to continue…
A front page story in The Washington Post yesterday was published under the headline: “Hinckley: Man on the mend or a danger?”
According to the story, a federal judge will decide the fate of would-be assasin John W. Hinckley Jr., this week after listening to five days of testimony. Hinckley’s family members, as well as his doctors and case manager, claim the now 56-year old Hinckley does not present a danger either to himself or to the community. The depression and unspecified mental disorder that drove him — along with his narcissistic personality disorder — to nearly kill President Ronald Reagan in 1981 are now all under control.
That’s not so, prosecutors claim. They insist that Hinckley, who has spent the past three decades in mental facilities, is deceptive, lazy, and can’t be trusted. The Post quoted Assistant U.S. Attorney Sarah Chasson stating, “Mr. Hinckley has not been a good risk in the past and, therefore, is not going to be a good risk in the future.”
The judge is being asked to determine if Hinckley is “dangerous.” If he is, the judge will not grant him more freedom than the ten day visits that he currently is allowed periodically with his mother — while being monitored by the U.S. Secret Service.
I often am asked how “dangerous” became the criteria that is used to decide if someone is so mentally ill that he/she can be involuntarily held and forced to undergo treatment. The question is an important one, especially for those of us who have loved ones with mental disorders.
Pete Earley is the bestselling author of such books as The Hot House and Crazy. When he is not spending time with his family, he tours the globe advocating for mental health reform.
As a former reporter for The Washington Post, Pete uses his journalistic background to take a fair-minded approach to the story all while weaving an interesting tale for the reader.