Step 2 of the 12 step AA program is: 

Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.

The great paradox of life for many of us is that at the time when our mind is working least well, at a time when our actual brain is not able to conjure up a logical thought because of the effects of alcohol, other drugs, beliefs which we have practiced telling ourselves often for a long time,  at a time when we often cannot tell a logical thought from an illogical thought; at a time, in other words, when our thinking fits the definition of insanity we  are to make a sane decision to admit to our insanity and then to believe that some power  can restore us to sanity.

Perhaps we first need to clarify what we mean by insanity. A often quoted definition is: “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results”.  If one goggles this definition one will find that sometimes this definition is attributed to Albert Einstein and other times it is attributed to someone else.  I can find no concrete evidence that anyone really knows who first coined this definition.   The fact is, however, that it is a definition which often makes sense to a great many people. Certainly in the case of harmful behavior such as addiction, trying to “fix” another person such as an unhealthy partner, or trying over and over again to make something work which clearly is not designed to work is indeed insane. 

One could, of course,  use the legal definition of insanity.  The legaldictionary.com defines insanity as:  "A defendant is insane within the meaning of the law if, at the time of the alleged criminal conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, he lacked substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law or to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct."   Each state in the United States and each country in the universe may have a slightly different legal definition of insanity, but  it always involves, to some degree, the  inability  to change his or her behavior to conform to the requirement of the law or the inability to appreciate the insanity of his or her insanity.   Often, in the case of addiction to alcohol, other drugs, sex, or other substances or behavior one knows that one’s behavior is insane but the power of the addiction is so powerful that one is unable to make a different choice.

Yet, something has to happen to force the individual to accept:

·      The insanity of his or her behavior

·      The inability to make a more rational choice by themselves.

·      The possibility, however remote it may seem, that something or someone can help restore one to sanity.

As we will see in the original 12step program, Alcoholic Anonymous, this power is, in Step 3, referred to the God of our understanding.  Using the term God presents its own set of issues for many people.   I will discuss this issue in the  discussion of step 3.  For the purposes of step 2, it is enough to accept the possibility that something or someone can restore help us begin to make more behavioral choices which leads to different results than the seemingly self-imposed, self-destructiveness of relying just on  the information or the sequence of  synapse connections in our brain.

Recently, I was reading a Pat Conroy novel where an individual was deciding to attend a military academy or college where one agrees to subject oneself to the complete authority of the upper classmen and women and the staff of that institution.  I can certainly attest to the fact that once one has agreed or been coerced to attending such an institution, one is not allowed to make any decision or to publicly hold an opinion which is different than that of those in charge.  The decision to attend such an institution could certainly be considered “coming to believe that a power greater than oneself can restore one to sanity” except in this case, it may be assumed that one possessed no logical thought prior to being told what is logical or sane.  To a lesser extent,  the same is true of anyone who becomes a member of the military service.  There are those individuals who have willingly or unwilling agreed to subject themselves to this sort of higher authority! It may be pure fear which directs their behavior but, at least temporarily, and, at times, for life, one’s thinking does change.

At any rate, either out of desperation or because one has witnessed a change in someone’s behavior, one decides to trust something or someone outside  for help in exploring a different thinking process.   

Many individuals I have known come to realize that their unhappiness in their job or profession is adversely affecting the life and health of their family even though they have told themselves they are doing this work for their family.  They come home every night angry and depressed. They and their families are miserable. Yet, they cannot think their way into a new option. They have to reach outside of themselves.  They take the risk of  that some person or agency who specializes in such situations can help them or they ask their pastor to pray with them or they begin to read a book or ...  The point is that they take the risk of believing that there might be a better way to live their best thinking telling them that they are trapped.

Daily I am faced with admitting that I do not know an answer  and if I insist on relying on my own thinking the results are not going to be attractive. The issue may be  admitting I need to ask for directions or that I cannot repair something in the house myself.  More than once I have, without any expertise, tackled a project only to make the problem worse than it was in the beginning.  My thinking that I can, without knowledge or skill, do some complicated project is insane!  

In Step 3 we will further explore how to go about deciding who or what to ask for help, but we cannot do that until we decide that what we are doing is not working and  that we are willing to take the risk to looking outside of ourselves and our current skills.

Soren Krkengaard, the Danish Christian philosopher and theologian, and others have talked  about the leap of faith. This is step 2 – that leap of faith that help is available; that it is okay to ask for help.

Written September 8, 2015 

A person I have known for many years is on trial for murder. This man is accused of murdering his wife who had also been both a colleague and a client of mine. Both the husband and the wife had struggled with addiction for many years. For times they were able to stay clean and sober and be high functioning members of the community. The man, Larry, had, after getting sober and clean finished college and became a licensed teacher.  His wife, Sue, had been an addiction counselor and later owned and operated a restaurant.  They had also raised two children. 

It is alleged that Larry shot and killed his wife. She was shot three times –the brain, the face and back of the shoulder.  The defense had suggested that she committed suicide although the nature of the wounds does not substantiate this claim.  It has been suggested that both he and Sue had relapsed and were drinking at the time of the shooting.  I have not seen any reports about what, if any alcohol or other drugs were in her system when she died. 

Larry could be found innocent or convicted of murder or aggravated murder. He could not plead insanity.   Even though it is generally recognized and accepted that addiction is a chronic disease, which is as vulnerable to relapse as diabetes or other illnesses, being under the influence is not, in and of itself, an accepted defense for a criminal act.

Legally, insanity is:

“n. Mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, cannot conduct her/his affairs due to psychosis, or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior. Insanity is distinguished from low intelligence or mental deficiency due to age or injury. If a complaint is made to law enforcement, to the District Attorney or to medical personnel that a person is evidencing psychotic behavior, he/she may be confined to a medical facility long enough (typically 72 hours) to be examined by psychiatrists who submit written reports to the local superior/county/district court. A hearing is then held before a judge, with the person in question entitled to legal representation, to determine if she/he should be placed in an institution or special facility. The person ordered institutionalized at the hearing may request a trial to determine sanity. Particularly since the original hearings are often routine with the psychiatric findings accepted by the judge. In criminal cases, a plea of "not guilty by reason of insanity" will require a trial on the issue of the defendant's insanity (or sanity) at the time the crime was committed. In these cases the defendant usually claims "temporary insanity" (crazy then, but okay now). The traditional test of insanity in criminal cases is whether the accused knew "the difference between right and wrong,"

following the "M'Naughten rule" from 19th century England. Most states require more sophisticated tests based on psychiatric and/or psychological testimony evaluated by a jury of laypersons or a judge without psychiatric training. A claim by a criminal defendant of his/her insanity at the time of trial requires a separate hearing to determine if a defendant is sufficiently sane to understand the nature of a trial and participate in his/her own defense. If found to be insane, the defendant will be ordered to a mental facility, and the trial will be held only if sanity returns. Sex offenders may be found to be sane for all purposes except the compulsive dangerous and/or antisocial behavior. They are usually sentenced to special facilities for sex offenders, supposedly with counseling available. However, there are often maximum terms related to the type of crime, so that parole and release may occur with no proof of cure of the compulsive desire to commit sex crimes.

As one can see it is very difficult to prove that someone does not know right from wrong if the question is asked when the person’s mental illness has been treated and stabilized even if that was the not case at the time of the behavior with which the person has been charged.

One can claim voluntary or involuntary intoxication.   Involuntary intoxication would mean that someone had taken alcohol or other drugs without their knowledge, i.e. spiked their ice tea without their knowledge.   The following information on criminal.findlaw.com clarifies the fact that normally voluntary intoxication is normally no excuse for committing a crime.

Voluntary Intoxication

People often claim that, because they were drunk or otherwise intoxicated when committing a crime, they shouldn't be punished for it. Generally, however, voluntary intoxication isn't an excuse for committing a crime, and second-degree murder is no different.

In some states, intoxication becomes a factor when determining degrees of homicides, though, so it is possible that a second-degree murder charge could be reduced on the basis of the defendant’s intoxication at the time of the slaying. This cuts both ways, however, and the defendant’s intoxication may also constitute an aggravating factor in the killing.

Now I personally find legal definition of insanity and the legal restriction on explaining or justifying a crime when intoxicated very confusing. If, in fact, addiction is a disease which results in one not being able to resist the persistent, powerful urge to drink or use another drug, eat more food, get more money or purchase more things, then one is in an ordinary sense insane.  In fact many in the addiction field define insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results” As an addiction counselor I have known and currently know many very good people who clearly know right from wrong and consistently when not actively engaged in addictive behavior do the right/moral/ethical behavior. However, these same people, when under the control of their addiction, engage in behaviors, which are contrary to their value system. These people often express enormous regret and remorse for their behavior. Others hide their remorse from the “public” because they cannot admit to their shame and “keep it together”.

Larry is a man who often found it difficult to talk about his feelings. He had been treated for acute depression as well as addiction. His wife, Sue, had also been treated for depression and addiction.  Both, when using and/or acutely depressed had difficulty and/or found it impossible to have what I would consider a logical/sane discussion.

I had been to their home to visit their family on several occasions. Sometimes Larry, Sue and the children all came for a family session in my office.   If they were not drinking, using other drugs or in the grip of an acute depressive episode I felt comfortable taking Sam with me to visit them. Sam always enjoyed them and greeted all of them with generous hugs.   Thus, it was not surprising when Sam asked me about Larry’s and the very public trial.

Sam:  Everyone is saying that Larry is a bad person. Is Larry a bad person? 

Me: No, Sam. I do not think Larry is a bad person.  You knew that Larry and Sue both had problems. Remember we talked about that.

Sam:  Everyone says that he killed Sue!

Me: That is apparently true from what we now know.  That is very sad. We both loved Sue.

Sam:  Yes (wiping away a tear), I miss Sue. We will never see her again will we.

Ms.:  Well, some people believe that when we die we see all the people who died before we did, but no, we will not be able to visit he in the way we used to.  You remember that we went to the funeral and saw them put her casket in the ground.

Sam:  Yes.  Is she cold in the ground?

Me:  I don’t think she feels anything now Sam.

Sam: Is Larry going to prison?

Me:  I don’t know but I think that he may be in prison for a long time.

Sam:  But you said his mind was sick. If his mind were sick why would he go to prison?

Me:  I don’t know Sam. Some people think that even though alcoholism is a disease that we can make a decision of whether or not to drink. 

Sam: Like I can make a better decision to not eat candy before dinner.

Me: Exactly.  You know how difficult that can be. That is why I have asked you to try telling your parents or me when you feel like eating candy before dinner.

Sam:  Yes, sometimes I have done that and then I do not feel like eating candy.  That is strange?  Where does that feeling go?

Me: I agree that it is strange, but that is why some people go to those meetings attended with Joe.

Sam: That was fun. Everyone was really nice.

Me: I agree but Larry and Sue felt too bad to go to meetings or call someone some of the time.

Sam:  Larry must feel very bad.

Me: I am sure he does. He is a good man.  It cannot be fun in jail.

Sam: Could we make him a card and send to him?  I bet that would make him smile. 

Me:  I am sure it would. Let’s get our box of art supplies!

As is always the case, Sam lets me know when she is ready to end the discussion for now.  Often she later is ready to continue the discussion.   We may find that she revisit many of the issues associated with this sad situation.  Obviously many issues did not get addressed including the question of why Larry owned guns despite his history did not get addressed.  I will have to do some thinking about how to respond to Sam should she ask about this.