“Criminals thrive on the indulgence of society’s understanding.” — Batman Begins
When public figures face accusations of abuse, a familiar pattern emerges: they express performative remorse and emphasize personal mental health struggles, sometimes coupled with a sudden religious awakening, to deflect culpability.
Former Maine senatorial candidate Graham Platner recently exemplified this tactic. He attempted to preemptively mitigate damage by referencing his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) weeks before Jenny Racicot, his alleged victim, publicly disclosed allegations of rape.
His political rehabilitation effort was aided by many Democrats who continued to support him despite emerging reports of misogynistic behavior, demonstrating stark hypocrisy. Some reversed their stance only after Racicot’s allegation became widely known.
This is not an isolated partisan failure. Both major parties have historically subordinated women’s safety to political expediency. For instance, the institutional betrayal of Lindsey Boylan after she accused Andrew Cuomo of sexual harassment undermined her trust and mental health, revealing the party’s inconsistent values.
Amid partisan recriminations, the medical dimension of Platner’s case deserves scrutiny: his mental health is repeatedly invoked as contextual justification for his conduct.
Two principles must be clear:
- Mental illness does not cause abusive behavior; abuse is a deliberate choice.
- Mental illness does not exempt anyone from the consequences of their actions.
Two Realities Can Coexist
A decade ago, a conversation with a friend clarified this for me. We discussed a male peer whose unwelcome romantic pursuits disrespected boundaries. I initially wondered whether his autism diagnosis explained his behavior. My friend corrected me: he is autistic and also simply disrespectful. A diagnosis never negates the requirement to honor consent. Individuals with mental health or neurodevelopmental conditions make choices independent of those conditions.
Necessary nuance: patients with severe and persistent mental illness (SPMI) are far more often victims than perpetrators of violence. Psychiatric settings are structured for safety, and any elevated risk is typically linked to substance use, fear, or disorganized thinking rather than malice. Most individuals with mental health diagnoses are not violent, and society wrongly conflates misconduct with illness. Although untreated illness may heighten impulsivity, it does not cause or require antisocial acts.
Excusing abuse as a symptom of mental illness insults patients who already face stigma and misrepresents abuse itself. Abuse is calculated, rooted in power and entitlement, not a lapse of control. Abusers rarely feel unjustified; conversely, SPMI patients who act out during decompensation usually express genuine remorse once insight returns.
If an individual maintains public composure while abusing privately, that is not illness—it is choice.
Trauma Does Not Mandate Harm
Attributing all maladaptive conduct to pathology infantilizes patients and evades accountability. Psychiatric treatment is empathetic but does not shield patients from consequences; recognizing natural consequences is therapeutic.
Except during untreated psychosis or mania, patients retain insight and make reasoned choices. Those who, with clear thinking, intentionally abuse others require legal justice, not psychiatric platforming.
Ill-managed PTSD is no justification for violating trust. As someone with PTSD, I maintain boundaries even on difficult days.
The adage “hurt people hurt people” is misleading. Many who have suffered profoundly choose to protect others, using their experience to foster healing. When hurt individuals voluntarily harm others, they bear full responsibility. Society must stop excusing it.
