FINALLY, AFTER FIVE DAYS – AT 5:52 P.M. ET:  We have complained mightily here about the knee-jerk first response of the mainstream media to the Arizona shootings.  We've also griped, correctly, that certain institutions in American society, like colleges, are too often exempted from criticism.

To its credit, The New York Times runs a story today raising serious questions about the performance of the alleged shooter's college, which knew that he had serious mental deficits.   

TUCSON — Many people had a glimpse of the deep delusions and festering anger of Jared L. Loughner, but none seemed in a better position to connect the dots than officials at Pima Community College.

After the release of detailed reports on Mr. Loughner’s bizarre outbursts and violent Internet fantasies that the college had kept, the focus has turned to whether it did all it could to prevent his apparent descent into explosive violence last weekend.

In September, Pima had suspended Mr. Loughner and told him not to return without a psychologist’s letter certifying that he posed no danger. But it took no steps to mandate that he have a psychiatric evaluation, which in Arizona is easier than in many states.

Laura J. Waterman, the clinical director of the Southern Arizona Mental Health Corporation in Tucson, criticized Pima officials for not initiating an involuntary evaluation.

“Where does it reach a level where you say this person shouldn’t be a part of any community and we have a responsibility to do something about that?” she said. The clinic, which offers walk-in psychiatric crisis care regardless of a patient’s ability to pay, is one of the agencies Pima students are referred to when they need mental health services, including students who have been suspended like Mr. Loughner.

No record of Mr. Loughner seeking or receiving mental health care has surfaced.

And the college's response:

“It is part of our practice to provide students with information of where they can go,” said Charlotte Fugett, an official at the college. “It’s their responsibility to find a practitioner.”

So impressive.

The fact is that there is a history going back more than three decades of actions to discourage or even block involuntary commitment of mental patients.  Back in the 70s, some civil libertarians believed, and apparently still do, that it is a violation of someone's rights to involuntary commit that person because of certain mental disorders.

The crusade against involuntary commitment must now be reexamined.  It has produced some catastrophic results, including the phenomenon of dangerous people wandering the streets, possibly in possession of a weapon, and mentally ill people becoming homeless and even freezing to death.

The road to Hell, as we were taught, is paved with good intentions. 

The Times story is worth reading.

January 13, 2011