[ 19 April 2008: Message edited by: Stormwind ]

I want to start by expressing concern and disagreement with your characterization of people with mental health issues and the connection to violent behaviour. In the story you linked to, and the story you alluded to, the fact that you are focusing on stories in which mental health may or may not be an issue is concerning. In my opinion, this type of discourse only leads to further stigmatization of people with so-called "mental illnesses", as well as legitimizing that "mental illnesses" are an accurate and helpful way to understand emotional and behavioural issues/problems.

To your questions:
a) I don't think that state has any particular interest in public safety; the responsibility of the state is to keep the citizenry in line and compliant. But that's me.
b) I'd need a lot more info to comment.
c) Assuming the laws in Scotland work similar to here, the rules are once he'd done his time, he was done, and his full rights were conferred back onto him. Prisons and correctional centres are not famous for dealing with emotional issues and trauma, never mind dealing with minimizing recidivism.
d) This reads like a very conservative question, and my question back to you is why do we think that putting someone in jail will lead to rehabilitation? Whatever the crime committed?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stormwind:
It reminds me of the current murder case in BC too, where a father with mental health problems was released from custody and killed his children.

---

[ 19 April 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]

quote:

---

I think "repeat sex offender with mental health problems" puts the issue quite well. There is no implication that the "mental health problems" are the cause of the sexual offenses. Rather, the former are presented as "complicating" the...

---

In Canada I would have expected the Crown to have sought a finding of "dangerous offender" on that man.

Of course it's not just the justice system's responsibility: a psychiatrist can declare a man to be suffering from mental disorder of a nature or quality that likely will result in serious bodily harm to the patient or to another person, and have him detained in a psychiatric facility.

But, at the same time, I didn't want stormwind to bear the weight of all this on her first dip into the rabble pool....

[I was replying to Martin's post but someone got in there before me ]

[ 19 April 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]

...at least much.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilf Day:
As for Schoenborn, I have a lot of questions about that case too, which will have to wait for the evidence.

---

quote:

---

(...)We found that the Charter obligations to the women of Canada are ignored by those responsible for emergency services, police intervention, and those prosecuting cases. The promise to women in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is broken when it comes to women who complain of violence against women.

We found that women calling the police expect that they are calling on their rights to equality and on Canada’s obligation to protect those rights. We found that women around the world are complaining of the same horrors of violence against women and poverty. And most national groups of women complain of their government’s response. In coalition with other Canada wide groups and in conjunction with women’s groups around the world women are saying that we know we have a right to be free of violence against women, as well as poverty, and that we are developing an international agenda, mechanisms, and a movement to address those concerns. We have come together to complain of that violence and poverty through the World March of Women to national governments at International Social Forums, at the World Bank, and World Trade Organization (WTO) processes, and at the United Nations.

We read the Charter of Rights and Freedoms together with international documents outlining human rights agreements of states in the United Nations: each document being designed to inform the other. The United Nations, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) committee, criticized Canada in January 2003. After our report to them they criticized Canada’s failures to over see with economic mechanisms that all levels of government comply with international agreements that Canada signs. They criticized the failure to support substantive equality, including the provision of social welfare, funding for equality test cases, Canada’s treatment of aboriginal women, women’s poverty, immigration policy, the treatment of women trafficked. The United Nations made a special point of urging the Canadian government to “step up its efforts to combat violence against women and girls and increase its funding for women’s crisis services and shelters in order to address the needs of women victims of violence under all governments.”

We operated with some hope of improving the treatment of women and children.

In this project we were connecting the restructuring of Canada with respect to social programs, the function and effect of feminist women’s anti-violence centres, the women who use them, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That new Charter in the constitution promises all women in Canadian equality under the law and protection of the law. We were connecting that promise to the lived experience of women who complain to the criminal justice system after an incident of sexist violence. For five years we participated in local national and international meetings coalitions and actions. We saw that globalization is changing the Canadian state and changing violence against women. We saw the promised indivisibility of rights and, therefore, assessed the impact of other inseparable issues of women’s equality. We saw among other things increased trafficking of women, the loss of welfare to women, and shifts in the criminal justice system that effectively decriminalize violence against women. We found that the changes from Canada Assistance Program (CAP) to the Canada Health and Social Transfer (CHST) and the Social Union Framework Agreement (SUFA) are changing federal provincial relations. Those changes must be adjusted to prevent further undermining of the promise of equality and freedom from violence made to Canadian women.

We hoped to encourage change along the way. We had already made public 99 Federal Steps Toward an End to Violence Against Women as a program that could reduce violence against women. Throughout that document, and this one, as well as across the five-year span, we recommended guidelines for policy changes on issues of criminalizing violence and developing equity. We hoped we might improve the policy development of police and crowns at least in relation to wife assault, sexual assault, criminal harassment, peace bonds, and sentencing. We knew we would be of assistance to women beaten and raped including, within the family, as well as those at risk on the job, and those driven into prostitution. But at the end of this five-year project we find the situation is worse for women reporting violence for criminalization.(...)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigcitygal:
Now, from a feminist perspective, if you want to talk about men's violence (the other commonality between your two stories) and why men are encouraged to think of women (in general and in intimate relationships) and children (their own) as property to be done with as they please, including all sorts of physical and sexual violence, then we've talked about that quite a lot in the archives of the feminist forum. I encourage you to check it out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigcitygal:

I want to start by expressing concern and disagreement with your characterization of people with mental health issues and the connection to violent behaviour. In the story you linked to, and the story you alluded to, the fact that you are focusing on stories in which mental health may or may not be an issue is concerning. In my opinion, this type of discourse only leads to further stigmatization of people with so-called "mental illnesses", as well as legitimizing that "mental illnesses" are an accurate and helpful way to understand emotional and behavioural issues/problems.

To your questions:
d) This reads like a very conservative question, and my question back to you is why do we think that putting someone in jail will lead to rehabilitation? Whatever the crime committed?

Now, from a feminist perspective, if you want to talk about men's violence (the other commonality between your two stories) and why men are encouraged to think of women (in general and in intimate relationships) and children (their own) as property to be done with as they please, including all sorts of physical and sexual violence, then we've talked about that quite a lot in the archives of the feminist forum. I encourage you to check it out.

---

The fact that both cases involved mental health was a coincedence. I have every sympathy for people with mental health issues and would never denigrate them for that reason. Murder and mental health are not necessarily related and I didn't mean that at all. I am sorry I mentioned the BC case where all the facts are not known.

I just think that a bit more care and attention would prevent tragedy. I don't think wishing that authorities would take more care and attention in prevention rather than apologizing after the fact, is a bad thing.

For the record I am not a conservative. I am a socialist/liberal. I actually think that some people can not be rehabilitated. In a perfect world everyone could be, but some people enjoy inflicting suffering. The jail time is often light and the victim's sentence heavy.

I did not want to approach this from a feminist perspective as I find it limiting.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stormwind:

Well. That was bracing.

The fact that both cases involved mental health was a coincedence. I have every sympathy for people with mental health issues and would never denigrate them for that reason. Murder and mental health are not necessarily related and I didn't mean that at all. I am sorry I mentioned the BC case where all the facts are not known.

I just think that a bit more care and attention would prevent tragedy. I don't think wishing that authorities would take more care and attention in prevention rather than apologizing after the fact, is a bad thing.

For the record I am not a conservative. I am a socialist/liberal. I actually think that some people can not be rehabilitated. In a perfect world everyone could be, but some people enjoy inflicting suffering. The jail time is often light and the victim's sentence heavy.

I did not want to approach this from a feminist perspective as I find it limiting.

You may delete this thread. Thank you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stormwind:
I actually think that some people can not be rehabilitated. In a perfect world everyone could be, but some people enjoy inflicting suffering. The jail time is often light and the victim's sentence heavy.

---

Don't feel unwelcome, Stormwind.

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldgoat:
I'm not aware of anyone sucessfully using a personality disorder as a defence of not criminally responsible.

---

ETA: Testing. Does this thread still exists?

[ 20 April 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]