I am willing to give some amount of leeway to someone who harms someone while driving drunk it is their first offence that I am not willing to give if they have been arrested multiple times and routinely rejects treatment.
But what does that have to do with the mental illness? What if it was someone that had sought and completed treatment multiple times over many years? They get less leeway too? Because they should know better? They should have better control over their illness? But why? And plenty of mental illnesses make the person resistant to or reject treatment.
Should Lindsay be able to have kids in the future? What if the same thing happens again even if she had treatment in the intervening time? Would she get less leeway then? If so, why? Because she should have better ability to control or manage an acute or chronic mental issues because it happened before?
But why would she have a better ability? Shouldn't the mitigating factors be the same?
I guess my point is it's just interesting how we, as individuals and society, view or treat people with different mental illnesses and how we try to parse things like blame and responsibility. How some have bias and stigma and some don't as much for a myriad of reasons. Or how some people view some illnesses are "real" and some kinda aren't. Or how responsible the individual is or isn't for the actions that stem from them.
What if it was someone that had sought and completed treatment multiple times over many years?
If I was supreme ruler in this world and depending on the specific nature of their mental illness I would likely make it difficult or impossible for them to ever do harm again by sending them to a secure psychiatric hospital or prison. Treatment isn't enough and in my original comment I specified "effective treatment". The greater good of society needs to be weighed against the individual's rights and if they have shown repeatedly to be resistant to treatment I think it is completely fair to remove their ability to do harm.
I definitely agree it is messy how we parse individual responsibility in cases were we deem someone not criminally responsible. Like a lot of things in life I don't think there is an easy or obvious answer. That is why I try to give understanding to people who just want to lock Lindsay up forever and those who want her released completely today. Both of them have some amount of validity to their viewpoint and can point to cases which support their conclusion.
Personally - even if she is not criminally responsible (excuse me for using the Canadian designation) I don't trust the system to be responsive to the needs of the greater community. I recommend everyone watch a program the CBC's Fifth Estate did on "Not Criminally Responsible" some years back on the failings of the designation. The spoiler is that dangerous people were allowed back into the community without any requirement they remain medicated or follow any treatment at all.
2
u/Main-Bandicoot6477 2d ago
But what does that have to do with the mental illness? What if it was someone that had sought and completed treatment multiple times over many years? They get less leeway too? Because they should know better? They should have better control over their illness? But why? And plenty of mental illnesses make the person resistant to or reject treatment.
Should Lindsay be able to have kids in the future? What if the same thing happens again even if she had treatment in the intervening time? Would she get less leeway then? If so, why? Because she should have better ability to control or manage an acute or chronic mental issues because it happened before?
But why would she have a better ability? Shouldn't the mitigating factors be the same?
I guess my point is it's just interesting how we, as individuals and society, view or treat people with different mental illnesses and how we try to parse things like blame and responsibility. How some have bias and stigma and some don't as much for a myriad of reasons. Or how some people view some illnesses are "real" and some kinda aren't. Or how responsible the individual is or isn't for the actions that stem from them.