1
Jeffrey Chen
Fearing the Beast within the Mentally Ill
The history of mental illness up to the present day has been persistently characterized by
stigma. Awareness of this issue began in the early 1950s, during the start of the Civil Rights
Movement. This resulted in increased public education of the mentally ill and the community
mental health movement. These results, in combination with America’s increasing level of
formal education in the past 50 years, led to the assumption that the stigma of mental illness has
decreased significantly. However, recent studies have shown that not only the stigma still
remains a major issue today, the level of stigma actually increased over the past few decades.
Despite the increased awareness of mental illness, the stigma only worsened. If education and
even a political movement are not enough to resolve this problem, what other solutions do we
have?
Instead of advocating solely for “traditional” answers, such as improving treatment of the
mentally ill and increasing more public awareness, I propose an unorthodox approach to
resolving this stigma. I propose that we, as a society, have never seen the mentally ill equally as
a human being. Instead, we see an animal, something insanely dangerous and must be contained
for society’s safety. In the public’s eyes, the mentally ill are reduced to animality, when they are
dehumanized and become a beast. The stigma of mental illness today stems from this
relationship. In their beast reincarnation, the mentally ill can only be seen as mad, insane,
dangerous, savage, wild, needs to be detained, etc. These animal-like characteristics used to
describe beasts derive into society’s description of the mentally ill, resulting in society’s fear of
the mental illness. I believe we must sever this connection between man and animal, a
connection that is centuries old. In order to relieve the stigma of mental illness, we the people
2
must change our perspective of the mentally ill from a mysterious, dangerous animal to a human
being in need of support. In order to do so, society needs a deeper understanding between mental
illness and animals from a historical context and how it appears in the modern age. I will be
using Michel Foucault’s book, Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of
Reason to explain the origins of the relationship between the mentally ill, madness, and animals
and the limitations of a Foucauldian approach. From then on, I will continue to use Foucault’s
work as a base for my argument as I further explore this relationship relative to the modern
world. By having a better understanding of this relationship, we as a society can see the
difference between human and animal, thereby stripping away the animal-like characteristics
associated with the mentally ill and seeing the mentally ill in a more positive light.
The book, Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason, written
by Michel Foucault illustrates the historical context needed to understand the stigma of mental
illness and the dehumanization of the mentally ill. In the 3rd chapter, “The Insane,” Foucault
begins the historical timeline during the Renaissance, a time which allowed “the forms of
unreason to come out into the light of day; public outrage gave evil the powers of example and
redemption” (Foucault 66). Unreason within this context consists of everyone who is considered
“evil” appearing in many different forms. It groups together the average criminals, individuals
who have broken the laws, along with those who are considered strange by the public,
individuals whose ideas threaten society’s current status quo. However, unreason is also lumped
together with madness, which consists of the mentally ill, people who are considered insane by
doctors and society. There were no attempts made to distinguish between the two because people
assumed the mentally ill were sinners, and their current state of madness was their punishment.
Under society’s eyes, both madness (the mentally ill) and unreason (outlaws, heretics, etc.) are
3
the same, sinners. While the animalistic descriptions were not associated with the mentally ill at
this time, we can see signs of these characteristics forming. For example, instead of educating
themselves of the difference between the mentally disabled and unreason, society decided to
trivialize the mentally ill. The mentally ill victims were publically shamed, forced to confess to
ridiculous claims. The public shaming were disguised as a way for the mentally ill to “repent”
from their sins and be “cured” of their illness when in reality, this so-called “repentance” is
actually a form of public humiliation. These attempts to belittle the mentally ill established the
foundations of the association of animalistic characteristics with the mentally ill.
Foucault describes the confession of Gilies de Rais, who was accused in the 15th century
as “a heretic, an apostate, a sorcerer, a sodomite, an invoker of evil spirits, a soothsayer, a slayer
of innocents, an idolater, working evil by deviation from the faith” and was forced to admit to
crimes "sufficient to cause the deaths of ten thousand persons" multiple times during his trial
(Foucault 66). This confession is comparable to the humiliation of zoo animals. Just how the
public humiliation creates an illusion of
repentance, zoo gives the impression that “they
are delightful to children, that they educate the
public about wild animals or preserve endangered
species” (Senior 119). In reality, zoos are “cruel
institutions, born of colonial greed and vanity,
Figure 1: Bear cages, one square meter in
size, in Dalian zoo, Port Arthur, Liaoning
Province, China, in 1997. (Wikipedia)
built to satisfy a perverse human need to gawk at
animals and dominate them” (Senior 119).
Animals are suppressed, imprisoned within
unlivable conditions not fit for their needs (Figure 1), all for human amusement. This situation is
4
similar to how the public shaming of the mentally ill was meant to trivialize the mentally ill. In
both scenarios, an illusion is created in order to justify the suppression of the victim, in this case
the suppression of zoo animals and the mentally ill. The zoo animals are literally imprisoned
within their cages. The mentally ill are also imprisoned within cages, confined within jail cells
along with the other forms of unreason or within hospital rooms. However, the mentally ill are
also imprisoned by public ridicule. By humiliating the mentally ill, concerns about their mental
health are trivialized by the public, and the victims are therefore considered “cured.”
This “cure” is explained by James Rachels 1990 book, Created From Animals. In his
book, Rachels uses Darwinism to explain the blurring of the metaphysical and moral boundaries
between animals and humans. Rachels explains the notion of human dignity as follows:
The idea of human dignity is the moral doctrine which says that humans and other
animals are in different moral categories; that the lives and interests in human beings are
of supreme moral importance, while the lives of other animals are relatively unimportant.
That doctrine rests, traditionally, on two related ideas: that man is made in God’s image,
and that man is a unique rational being (Rachels 171).
In terms of human dignity, humiliation is caused by the violation of the dignity. This dignity
fragile and is violated when the notion that humans are unique is in some way challenged. If
anything proves or simply suggests that humans are not unique, then the human dignity is
shattered, and the human is no different from any animal. The humiliation of Gilies de Rais and
other mentally ill patients like him shatters the human dignity and breaks down the boundary
between the mentally ill and animal. Differences between the animal and the mentally ill have
been distorted. By being humiliated like animals, a part of humanity within the mentally ill is
5
blurred with animality. As a result of this new perspective, the mentally ill are trivialized and
society’s fear of mental illness is diminished for the time being.
Fast forward to the end of the 18th century, public shamming has evolved into
imprisonment. Foucault notes that both unreason and madness were imprisoned. It is during this
time that public shaming transformed into a world of confinement, a system we recognize today
with our jails and hospitals. Foucault argues this is when the distinction between madness and
unreason begins. The unreason (criminals, heretics, etc.) is simply imprisoned, hidden away from
the public’s eyes, due to the amount of harm caused to society as a result of their crimes.
Consisting of the mentally ill, madness was exposed to the public, unlike how unreason was
hidden. Just how zoo animals are publically observed for human amusement, the mentally ill are
also openly observed. Examples of this occur as late as 1815, when “the hospital of Bethlehem
exhibited lunatics for a penny, every Sunday” (68 Foucault). This creates a strange contradiction
where confinement was supposed to hide unreason, but it explicitly drew attention to madness.
According to Foucault, the main intention of imprisoning the unreason “was to avoid scandal; in
the case of madness that intention was to organize it” (70 Foucault). This meant that madness
was supposed to be observed like animals. During the end of the 18th century, madmen were kept
in hellish asylums and hospitals, where they were treated like animals and to be observed by the
eyes of reason. For example, “at the hospital of Nantes, the menagerie appears to consist of
individual cages for wild beasts” (72-73 Foucault). This practice still continues today in the
present day. In Lee Correctional Institution, a prison in modern day South Carolina, the
schizophrenic Jerome Laudman was sprayed with “with chemical munitions” during his transfer
to his cell by the correctional staff, who then “physically abused him, and then left him naked on
the floor of a cold, empty isolation cell” (LeCompte 752). This brutal treatment stripped madmen
6
of their humanity. The sense of dominance practiced during the late 18th to minimize the fear of
the mentally ill still persists to this day. They are reduced to animality, when the madmen are
dehumanized and become a beast. No longer is the feral spirit suppressed. The public believed
this animality protects the lunatic from the cold, hunger, things considered fatal to normal
people. “In the reduction to animality, madness finds both its truth and its cure; when the
madman has become a beast, this presence of the animal in man, a presence which constituted
the scandal of madness, is eliminated: not that the animal is silenced, but man himself is
abolished” (76 Foucault).
Of course, this is all within society’s imagination, only a myth. The feral spirit does not
physically protect the madmen, but because the people are afraid of these madmen, they are seen
as dangerous, mysterious beasts and treated as such. The presence of man is "rhetorically" and
"symbolically" abolished, making madmen exempt of human morals and laws.
This exemption is seen in today’s insanity defense, a defense by excuse in criminal trials
that is based on the assumption at the time of the crime, the defendant “was incapable of
appreciating the nature of the crime and differentiating right from wrong behavior, hence making
them not legally accountable for crime” due to mental illness (Math 381). If the defendant is
found legally insane, then the defendant is found not guilty by reason of insanity. However, the
courts are not concerned with medically treating the defendant’s mental status. The courts are
more “concerned with the protection of the society from the possible dangerousness” from those
who are found not guilty by reason of insanity (Math 386). Instead of learning why these
madmen become mentally ill or researching proper treatment, they were treated and reined in
like animals. As a result of this beast metamorphosis, their confinement is justified in order to
protect the public order. This confinement creates a sense of control over these “animals.” This
7
imprisonment of mentally ill “animals” is a particular form of relationship between the oppressor
and the oppressed, an important observation I will discuss later. For now, I will finish up
exploring Foucault’s observations of the relationship between the animal and the mentally ill.
In the words of Licia Carlson in her essay, The Human as Just an Other Animal, “there is
a complex story to be told about the presence and treatment of two kinds of beings on the
philosophical stage: the non-human animal, and the mentally disabled” (Carlson 117). Like me,
Carlson also uses Foucault’s Madness and Civilization to observe the relationship between the
human other and the animal other. What is significant about her article is her observations of the
limits of the Foucauldian approach. While Foucault’s work on madness “provides a unique
window into the intricacies of the human-non-human relationship,” it only “paints a rich and
complex historical and philosophical portrait of the animalization” (Carlson 128). What
Foucault’s works does not do is explain the why of the relationship. Carlson concludes the
purpose of Foucault’s work is to teach us to search for traces of “the human face and masks of
the beast” in today’s world of unreason (Carlson 127). She then derives this conclusion into two
solutions: “one which asks us to humanize our view of the ‘cognitively disabled’ and the other
which demands that as humans we embrace our animality and rethink our relationship to the
animal other” (Carlson 127). However, Carlson does not explore these two solutions in-depth,
merely concluding that the Foucauldian approach creates new questions and different approaches
that may one day end the silence of the mentally ill and shatter the relationship between the
mentally ill and animaility.
Although Foucault ends the historical timeline at the end of the 18th century, the stigma
of mental illness and the relationship between animal and mental illness continued to develop.
We must continue to apply Foucault’s work in contemporary society in order to better
8
understand the current relationship
today. In Phelan’s and Link’s 1998
article, “The growing belief that people
with mental illnesses are violent: the
role of the dangerousness criterion for
civil commitment”, increasing public
awareness of the mentally ill since the
1950s as a result of (1) large-scale
Figure 2: Percentage of respondents describing
mentally ill persons as violent, stratified according
to the use of ``dangerous to self or others''
language (Phelan and Link S8)
public education campaigns, (2) the community mental health movement, (3) dramatic increases
in level of formal education, and (4) increased levels of tolerance for other out-groups has led to
the assumption that “the stigma of mental illness has declined dramatically in the United States”
(Phelan and Link S7). The more recent report published by the Centers for Disease Control &
Prevention (CDC), “Attitudes Toward Mental Illness — 35 States, District of Columbia, and
Puerto Rico, 2007” reinforces this belief, reporting “most adults (88.6%) agreed with a statement
that treatment can help persons with mental illness lead normal lives” (CDC 619). However,
Phelan and Link found that the opposite was true. From their studies, Phelan and Link observed
“In 1950, 7.2% of respondents mentioned violent acts, tendencies, or impulses in their
description of what a person with mental illness is like. In 1996, the percentage had risen to
12.1” (Figure 1). After failing to find a reason why this increase occurred, Phelan and Link
looked into an unlikely possibility, “the widespread adoption in the United States of the criterion
of danger to self or others in involuntary civil commitment procedures” (Phelan and Link S8).
Due to the Civil Rights Movement during the 1960s and 1970s, most states enforced stricter civil
commitment “that required persons to be judged dangerous to themselves or others” before they
9
are committed to a psychiatric hospital (Phelan and Link S8). While the laws were meant to
protect the mentally ill, Phelan and Link believed this legal change strengthened negative
stereotypes of mental illness. The dangerousness criterion imprinted the phrase “’dangerous to
self or others’ into the culture and connects it specifically to mentally ill people” (Phelan and
Link S8). Their observations coincided with Foucault’s observation of madness and animality.
Foucault noted the reason why the insane is imprisoned for the public’s safety was because of
how dangerous the madman’s animality was perceived by society. The insane were seen as so
dangerous that a system was created to restrain them. However, the system’s purpose was not to
punish. It was “simply intended to fix within narrow limits the physical locus of a raging frenzy”
(Foucault 71). Foucault gives a particular example of a woman subject to violent seizures at a
hospital in Bethnal Green during the end of the 18th century.
A woman subject to violent seizures was placed in a pigsty, feet and fists bound; when the
crisis had passed she was tied to her bed, covered only by a blanket; when she was
allowed to take a few steps, an iron bar was placed between her legs, attached by rings to
her ankles and by a short chain to handcuffs (Foucault 71-72).
Going back to the contemporary period today, we see that the mentally ill were seen as
dangerous animals for centuries. This historical viewpoint of the mentally ill merely simplified
into a new phrase, “dangerous to self or others.” While the two perceptions seem different at
first, they both express the idea of danger. Despite the supposedly better awareness of mental
illness today, the stigma of mental illness wasn’t alleviated. Instead, the stigma increased, as
observed in Phelan’s and Link’s report. While the new phrase, “dangerous to self or others,”
does not implicitly express the madman’s animality, these animalistic qualities still subtly
persists in the contemporary world. The mentally ill are still perceived as dangerous, if not even
10
more so compared to the end of the 18th century. The only thing that changed was simplifying
“dangerous beast that needs to be contained” to “dangerous to self or others.”
Ultimately, Foucault only traces the historical background of the relationship between
mental illness and animality. While the historical context is absolutely necessary in
understanding this relationship, we are limited within a historical timeframe. Instead, we should
use what we learned from Foucault’s observations and apply them to new problems and
approaches. In order to do so, I will use another unlikely source, Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the
Oppressed, to complete my
exploration of this topic. While
Freire does not discuss mental
illness, his observation on
oppression is important to
understand the relationship
Figure 3: The comic above shows the problems of the
between the mentally ill and the
“banking model” in a humorous way. (Calvin & Hobbes)
beast. In his book, Freire proposes a pedagogy with a new relationship between teacher, student,
and society. At first glance, it is bizarre to implement a conversation about education into a
debate over the dehumanization of the mentally ill. However, Freire’s discussion of the
oppressed and his “banking model” is critical in understanding why the mentally ill are
associated with animals. The “banking model” mentioned is Freire’s interpretation of the
traditional relationship between teacher and student. “The teacher talks about reality as if it were
motionless, static, compartmentalized, and predictable” and deposits this empty information into
the student, like a bank, who “records, memorizes, and repeats these phrases” without truly
understanding the meaning behind this information (Freire 69). Freire argues that this results in
11
the dehumanization of the students and the teachers as well as stimulating oppression within
society. Freire gives the rhetorical example of revolutionary leaders:
In their desire to obtain the support of the people for revolutionary action, revolutionary
leaders often fall for the banking line of planning program content from the top down.
They approach the peasant or urban masses with projects which may correspond to their
own view of the world, but not to that of the people. (Freire 94)
This example is ironic specifically because it repeats the methods of the people that the
revolutionary leaders are opposed to. The revolutionary leaders’ role was to liberate the people.
Ironically, in their methods to win the people over, instead of freeing them by allowing free view
of the world, revolutionary leaders push their view of the world over the people, repressing the
public. As a result, the public is dehumanized, desensitized of reality.
Just like how the revolutionary leaders and teachers are in a position of power to suppress
the public and the students, society also have the power to suppress the public. Society can take
on many forms, ranging from the obvious (police, politicians, etc.) to the more subtle (teachers,
priests, doctors, etc.). However, in the banking model, society is always the oppressor. The
repressed depends on what form society takes. For example, doctors and psychologists are both
in seats of power to suppress the mentally ill. As a result, it is society’s job to judge the
repressed’s normality and by proxy their humanity. Basically, society has the power to determine
how the mentally ill should live. Interestingly, although there is no relationship between Freire
and Foucault, Freire also describes the repressed people in the banking system as “animals”.
According to Freire, “animals live out their lives on an atemporal, flat, uniform ‘prop’” and
“cannot surmount the limits imposed by the ‘here,’ the "now,’ or the ‘there.’” (Freire 98-99).
This remark of the oppressed can also be said about the mentally ill in the hospital of Nantes and
12
the Lee Correctional Institution mentioned earlier in the article. In both cases of oppression in
education and oppression of mental illness, the oppressed are dehumanized as animals, unable to
grasp reality. Freire then notes this inhumane “banking system” was created because those in
positions of power wanted “to maintain the status quo” (Freire 102). Here, we now understand
the why. Why does the relationship between animal and mental illness continue to exist in
modern times? Maintaining the status quo is the answer. By maintaining this status quo, society
can continue to ignore the problem with the mentally ill. If something were to arise and
challenge the status quo, society will quickly repress it. Society will continue to throw the
mentally ill into prisons, hospitals and continue to treat them like animals. If the mentally ill are
seen as animals, they are unable to transform their realities, and society has free reign to deposit
any forms of repression onto the mentally ill. As a result, only one reality can exist, society’s
reality, and the status quo is maintained.
This status quo maintenance can be seen in the recent Sandy Hook Shooting in Newtown,
Connecticut, which violently shook America when 20-year-old Adam Lanza fatally shot 20
children and 6 adult staff members. The mass shooting re-sparked America’s fear of gun
violence, rekindling America’s debate over gun control as a result. Among the positions in the
debate the debate were increasing support for stricter background checks and stricter federal and
state gun legislation over the
sales of guns. While these
solutions to gun violence differ
in rationale, the rhetoric around
the debate shares the same
theme: mental illness. This focus
Figure 4: Picture of Sandy Hook Elementary and Adam
Lanza. (ABC News)
13
on mental health was the result of the Connecticut State Attorney’s office November 2013
report, which concluded that the investigation was unable to establish a conclusive motive, “the
shooter had significant mental health issues” that disrupted “his ability to live a normal life and
to interact with others” (Sedensky 43). Politicians, news articles, and journalists capitalized on
this new information, using America’s unconscious fear of the mentally ill as fuel for stricter gun
laws and background checks. Politicians have their background checks and gun laws all focus on
preventing any form of firearm from falling into the hands of the mentally sick. Journalists love
to blame mental illness as the cause of these mass shootings in their news articles. For example,
the national newspaper, USA Today, stated that “early indications about Lanza's obsession with
violence that were ignored or were not taken seriously by his parents, medical professionals or
the school district” and how his mental condition “progressively deteriorated in the last years of
his life, eventually living in virtual social isolation" (Stanglin and Bello).
From the “banking system” perspective, we once again see the same pattern. Society, in
the form of the media and activists, are working together to fight against the mentally ill, the
repressed, in the context of gun control. In order to maintain the status quo, society tries to
enforce various methods to continue repressing the mentally disabled. The media and politicians
both publically attack the mentally ill, blaming them as the cause of violent shootings. While this
particular example isn’t as explicit in describing the repressed as animals like in Freire’s book,
negative animistic characteristics subtly appear in these news articles and debates. The ABC
news article “5 Disturbing Things We Learned Today About Sandy Hook Shooter Adam Lanza,”
written by news journalists Katersky and Kim is one of many articles that reinforces the
negatively of mental illness. They describe Lanza’s level of violence since 7th grade as
disturbing, so disturbing that his creative writings “could not be shared” (Katersky and Kim).
14
Katersky and Kim continued to paint Lanza as a violent child, a child “presented very differently
from the other children” with “very distinct anti-social issues” (Katersky and Kim). Although
words like “animal” or “beast” are not explicitly used to describe Lanza, Katersky and Kim do
describe Lanza as violent and angry, adjectives used to describe wild animals. As a
representative of the mentally ill, Lanza is seen as violent and angry. Because Lanza is seen in
such a negative light, this implies that there must be control over people like Lanza, the mentally
ill. As a result, the mentally ill community remains repressed, maintaining the hierarchy of
power between society and the mentally ill.
So far, I have only discussed how we can better understand the relationship between the
animal and the mentally ill in hopes of stripping of these negative animalistic characteristics off
the mentally ill and finding new approaches to this stigma of mental illness. However Freire does
give us a solution, a new approach to this problem. In Freire’s eyes, the “banking” approach to
education is a form of dehumanization of both the students and the teachers, oppressing each
other’s potential in the world. Freire proposes instead a more “authentic” approach to teaching.
He advocates for a more mutual approach where teachers and students trust each other and have
mutual respect and love for one another. Only then can “the investigation of the people's
thinking—thinking which occurs only in and among people together seeking out reality” can
occur (Freire 108). From this investigation emerges the ability to intervene each other’s realities,
giving rise to new thoughts, ideas, and realities. Freire coins this idea of “consciousness raising”
as Conscientizagao (English term "conscientization"), “the deepening of the attitude of
awareness characteristic of all emergence” (Freire 109). Referencing back to Carlson’s
conclusion, Freire’s solution would be lined with humanizing our view of the ‘cognitively
disabled.’ While not directly referring to the mentally ill, we can apply Freire’s solution to the
15
stigma of mental illness. If we as a society were to treat the mentally ill as human beings instead
of animals, we can work together in order to overcome this stigma.
At the end of the day, the stigma of mental illness still exists as a severe problem today.
From a Foucauldian approach to this stigma, we can see that the stigma of mental illness exists
because of its historical relationship with the animal. As a result, the mentally ill are often
described with animalistic characteristics, a practice that still exists in the modern world.
Unfortunately, Foucault never explains why this relationship exists, merely explaining the
relationship only within the limits of a historical timeline. However, signs of his observations
continue today, allowing us to eventually find not only the reason of the relationship but also a
solution within Freire’s book. From Freire’s solution, I conclude that we as society and the
mentally ill should mutually approach the stigma of mental illness together in hopes of finding
new solutions to eventually peel off the negative animalistic stereotype the mentally ill and
alleviate society’s fear of the mentally ill.
16
Works Cited
Foucault, Michel. Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason. New
York: Pantheon Books, 1965. Print.
Rachels, James. Created From Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1990. Print.
Phelan, J. C., and B. G. Link. "The Growing Belief That People With Mental Illnesses Are
Violent: The Role Of The Dangerousness Criterion For Civil Commitment." Social
Psychiatry & Psychiatric Epidemiology 33.(1998): S7. Academic Search Complete. Web.
5 Feb. 2016.
Carlson, Licia. "The Human as Just an Other Animal." Phenomenology and the non-human
animal. Springer Netherlands, 2007. 117-133.
Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder, 1970. Print.
LeCompte, Jonathan D. "When Cruel Becomes The Usual: The Mistreatment Of Mentally Ill
Inmates In South Carolina Prisons." South Carolina Law Review 66.4 (2015): 751-784.
Academic Search Complete. Web. 1 Feb. 2016
“Attitudes Toward Mental Illness — 35 States, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, 2007”.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 59.20 (2010): 619–625. Web
Senior, Matthew. The Journal of the Midwest Modern Language Association 35.1 (2002): 119–
122. Web
Sedensky III, Stephen J. Office of the State’s Attorney Judicial District of Danbury. “Report of
the State’s Attorney for the Judicial District of Danbury on the Shootings at Sandy Hook
Elementary School and 36 Yogananda Street, Newtown, Connecticut on December 14,
2012.” Washington: GPO, 2013. Print.
17
Doug Stanglin and Marisol Bello, “Sandy Hook killer carefully planned attack, study says.” USA
Today. 21 November 2014. Web.
Math, Suresh Bada, Channaveerachari Naveen Kumar, and Sydney Moirangthem. "Insanity
Defense: Past, Present, And Future." Indian Journal Of Psychological Medicine 37.4
(2015): 381-387. Academic Search Complete. Web. 10 Mar. 2016.
Kim, Susanna and Katersky, Aaron, “5 Disturbing Things We Learned Today About Sandy
Hook Shooter Adam Lanza.” ABC News, 21 November 2014. Web