Getting Off Podcast book club discussion

So, I'm not finished with the book quite yet but I have a question that's been kicking around my brain for the last couple of days. In the chapter "The Shadow Within," the authors describe the Marc O'Leary's introduction to Carl Jung's concept of "the shadow." Its pretty clear to me that O'Leary needed some help from a counselor or mental health professional in order to conquer his "shadow."

My question revolves around stigma and legal penalties associated with telling counselors and other mental health professionals about a person's "shadow" and how society can help undo that, or if it is inevitable and self inflicted. I realize patient confidentiality is a thing, but I think there's an exceptional amount of courage that O'Leary would need to have in order to admit to a therapist that he had fantasies of rape. I think that there's an extraordinary amount of courage needed to (1) seek out a therapist, (2) trust that that therapist won't report to law enforcement (or, if the therapist is mandated to report, come to terms with that impending supervision and/ or arrest that comes with the mandatory reporting), and (3) admit that O'Learyt is having fantasies of rape. It makes me wonder if a lot of the problems our society is facing could be addressed if only society was willing to talk about them and not place artificial barriers around discussing subjects someone decided are "of moral turpitude."

I had a similar thing happened to me. For a time, I was suicidal. I needed to see a therapist. However, I was deathly afraid of a therapist recommending me for a chapter 51 involuntary mental health commitment for being a threat to myself or others. In my opinion, I let my problems pile up far too high before seeing a therapist because of this fear.

I've heard that early intervention is key in mental health, but what happens when stigma and obstacles are actively making it more difficult to seek out early intervention?

I am unsure how things work in America but in Australia you are able to discuss ideas, fantasies etc with a therapist with out fear of reporting. We only report when it becomes obvious that you are about to act out said fantasies etc. and are about to put the public at risk.
It is the same with suicidal ideation. This can only be acted upon by the therapist if you are about to carry out an act that will put you or the public at risk. People who live with mental health often have suicidal thoughts but never act on them, they are just something that sits there as a shadow to their every day events.
I hope this makes some sense. Often people don't seek help because of what other people might think, that is the stigma of mental health.

Yep, that's strikingly similar to how mental health counseling in America works, I believe. I won't pretend to be an authoritative source on mental health issues because I worked in mental health in Wisconsin for only 6 months or so, I do know that Wisconsin DHS uses the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale and a component part of that is deciding whether the individual has a feasible plan and the ability and tools to follow through.

I'm not sure about risk scales for sexual assault, and I won't speculate on that. However, in the book its pretty clear to me that the rapist (who's name is Marc O' Leary I've found out now; I'll edit the original post to reflect this) was meticulous in his planning of the break ins/ sexual assaults he committed. I guess my question then is how do therapists/ mental health professionals determine if a client is about to act on their fantasies or violent ideations. I feel like I'm getting caught up in the weeds a little bit, but I would think that if O'Leary believed that he his counselor would be mandated to report on his activities to law enforcement (assuming he decided to go to counseling independently and shared his fantasies with his counselor) he would be much less likely to go.

Yes, I had the same thought while reading the book. He was aware of his tendencies at such an early age, and I wondered how things might have worked out differently if he was able to get the help he needed when he was young and before he started acting on his desires. Obviously in an ideal world, someone could seek help and discuss ideas or fantasies, no matter how dark and violent, with mental health professionals without the fear of reporting. However, I think that (a) some people who need help, might not know that they wouldn't be reported to police, but also (b) the system is imperfect, and there may be circumstances when people seek help and then face reporting to police. For example, the heart-breaking account of the woman who recently tried to get help for post-partum depression:

https://slate.com/technology/2018/01/...

I've been thinking about this topic a lot recently with regards to the idea that is currently circulating that the way to stop school shootings is for people to speak out if they suspect someone is thinking about committing acts of violence. There have been at least three widely publicized examples of people being arrested because they were reported by friends or family as possibly planning a school attack. While I agree that if there is probable cause, indicating planning and concrete plans, likely this strategy would deter school attacks, but it *really* makes me worry about troubled people who need help who are arrested instead, and makes me wonder how this strategy of arrest-before-an-attack occurs further dissuades anybody who might be struggling with negative thoughts from seeking professional help.

Is it an arrest for placemebt in a mental health facilty or arrest for jail. Because i always thought that until an actual crime had occured you couldnt actually be arrested on suspiscion. Maybe im wrong, at least i am hoping that i am.

At least some have been arrested and criminally charged for allegedly planning such crimes, though some of these are recent, so I am not sure what will happen if it reaches trial.

For example, this:
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2018...

This one at least is juvenile court, but a charge of terrorism:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/01/1...

The arrest and charges for the 18 year old, at least, seem entirely appropriate. He had detailed plans, had chosen a date, had been journaling about it for months or more, and his grandmother found it concerning enough to tell police about.

The 14-15 year olds, we don’t know exactly what they said and how, but an initial arrest seems like an appropriate level of caution to me.

What was the 18 year old charged with? I mean he didn't actually commit a crime, planning something does not make it an action.
I think that personally, I have issues for arresting someone for intent, unless it is to section them to a mental health facility.