คาสิโนออนไลน์มือถือ_บาคาร่าวันละ 1000_สมัครสมาชิกW88

46 posts / 0 new
Last post
TMcDermott TMcDermott's picture
Mental Illness-Jail All Of Us

I have written mental illness being blamed for violence before. However, I'm still angry. In fact, my anger has increased has this issue continues remain so prevalent.

Everyone is looking for a scapegoat issue. Mental illness is easy. There is no collective voice that I know of to dispel the many misunderstandings and just plain wrong information. But particularly in America, where they can't even pass the weakest of gun legislation, the prevailing attitude is that all people with mental illness are dangerous and inherently prone to abhorrent violence. The truth is of course that those with mental illness are much more likely to be victims of violence or inflict violence on themselves.

Jail us all. It won't stop violence.?

Worse, I believe that this thinking has bled into Canada. We are so overwhelmed by American media it has to colour our attitudes.

This demonization of mental illness, along with a serious lack of professional understanding medical treatment and community support, almost guarantees this attitude will continue. Blame is always heaped on those misunderstood, marginalized and without means to defend themselves. The media ignores the facts, most buying into this perception. It's easier than delving indepth into the issue of mental illness and violence. It's lazy journalism and perpetuates misconceptions (to put it mildly).

I am dumbfounded. I don't know what I should do. Speak up certainly. But will anyone hear, will anyone pay attention, will anyone do something? There are many organizations in Canada that support people with mental illness, that speak on our behalf and attempt to educate.

It's time we encourage them to by more public. Barrage them with email, letters, phone calls. Get them to be more vocal, more proactive and put this issue in the proper context on the public agenda.

It's time to turn our anger into effective action.

?

Issues Pages: 
Francesca Allan

TMcDermott wrote:

There are many organizations in Canada that support people with mental illness, that speak on our behalf and attempt to educate.

There are??? ?The BC Schizophrenia Society, to take one example, just wants to perpetuate the chemical imbalance theory and strengthen our already draconian mental health laws. ?I can't think of one mainstream organization that speaks for me. ?They just further the stigma and make life more difficult. ?Can you give me an example of one Canadian organization that actually assists and empowers the mentally ill?

Francesca Allan

In the meantime, though, they persecute us.

Fidel

I get the impression that big pharma's multi-billion dollar white powder pills and potions only make matters worse in too many cases. Medical science is still feeling its way around in the dark when it comes to the human brain. Hopefully centuries from now they will look back on the state of medical science as having been clueless about the human mind and how it works, or is supposed to work. For now the witch doctors billion dollar white powder pills and potions seem to do as much or more harm than good with all the negative side effects prescribed with limited efficacy.

Fidel

They have no idea how to cure much of anything, but they are the ones regarded as demi-gods. I think scientific and technological progress might occur at a more rapid pace once they ditch the bad economic system working to prevent progress. The planet is sick, and so are millions of people. I think the two issues may be indirectly or even directly linked. I think the bad socio-economic system is not designed around the needs of people or? the environment we depend on so much as it is engineered around profit and the needs of a handful few privileged elite on our sick planet. Earth in general is running a fever.

Francesca Allan

Perhaps I'm crazy in response to a crazy world.

Slumberjack

People are?often labelled crazy when they fall?out of step with the cadenced insanity of the society around them.

TMcDermott TMcDermott's picture

In response to Francesca's point, as I think about it now, there isn't an organization that really does speak out. I should have done more research. I think I wrote that more out of hope than fact. I think also that we have to put pressure on any organization we know of. I'll hunt down as many organizations and contact information I can and post the information. Thanks Francesca.

I very much agree with the other issue raised about the prevalance of and reliance on medication not just as a part of treatment but as the only method. During the last decade, I have been on so many different meds I cannot number or list them. The pharm industry which is huge and anyone who watches a sliver of American television incredibly proactive in selling their latest and great and cause more damge than good. We live in a world of backward prioritie. The bottom line and profits are all that matter.

Thanks all and I'll get back to you.?

Francesca Allan

TMcDermott, these three below are great resources. ?They're all American, though; unfortunately there isn't really a Canadian equivalent as of yet. ?The issues are the same in both countries, however. And there are two books by award-winning journalist Robert Whitaker (who runs madinamerica.com) called Mad in America and Anatomy of an Epidemic, both of which I strongly recommend. Basically, Whitaker writes about the astonishing rise in chronic mental illness coinciding with the pharmacological revolution in the field.

And, just you know, I, too, have been on countless different medications. ?I've been hospitalized, isolated, tied down, force drugged, force electroshocked. ?You name it, it's been done to me. I've been diagnosed as depressed, bipolar, schizophrenic, schizo-affective, borderline personality, and those are just the ones I can remember. ?

http://mindfreedom.org/

http://psychrights.org/index.htm

http://www.madinamerica.com/

Eventually, I came to the understanding that psychiatry is a pseudo-science marketing empire crock of shit. ?As SOAP (Speak Out Against Psychiatry) advises, remember recovery starts with non-compliance.

Good luck to you.

shartal@rogers.com

In Ontario in most cases being "crazy". Is not enough to get someone involuntarily hospitalized for long periods of time. More common is a situation in which someone is convicted of a criminal charge that included violence against someone else. There are cases in which the criminal conviction does not include violence against a person but they are less common.

Francesca Allan

In general, in BC anyway, long hospitalizations aren't really the problem anymore. ?If you behave yourself ("Yes, I'm neurologically damaged, I'll take my drugs, just let me out for a smoke please."), you can usually get out in a matter of days or weeks -- they simply don't have the resources to hold people for longer. ?The more sinister and overwhelming concern, however, is out-patient commitment where people are monitored and persecuted in their own homes. ?That arrangement can last indefinitely.

The BC Civil Liberties Association points to Ontario's mental health legislation as better and more patient-oriented law. ?In BC, you simply have to be diagnosed with a mental disorder and be "capable of deterioration" to be subjected to forced hospitalization, drugging and electroshock.

I'm a little concerned that your post perpetuates the mythical link between mental illness and violence. ?Perhaps that wasn't your intention but it reads that way to me.?

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Call Us Crazy

Mad movements organize against ableism, mentalism and more

OTTAWA—People are Mad. And they’re doing something about it.

Mental health awareness is gradually gaining ground, and so are radical alternatives to mainstream approaches. Community-based initiatives by and for the so-called crazies amongst us tend to be kept under the radar in Canada, challenging discrimination, providing peer support and advocating for a diversity of perspectives on mental health, its treatment and justice....

http://dominion.mediacoop.ca/story/call-us-crazy/16948

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Francesca Allan wrote:

In general, in BC anyway, long hospitalizations aren't really the problem anymore. ?If you behave yourself ("Yes, I'm neurologically damaged, I'll take my drugs, just let me out for a smoke please."), you can usually get out in a matter of days or weeks -- they simply don't have the resources to hold people for longer. ?The more sinister and overwhelming concern, however, is out-patient commitment where people are monitored and persecuted in their own homes. ?That arrangement can last indefinitely.

The BC Civil Liberties Association points to Ontario's mental health legislation as better and more patient-oriented law. ?In BC, you simply have to be diagnosed with a mental disorder and be "capable of deterioration" to be subjected to forced hospitalization, drugging and electroshock.

I'm a little concerned that your post perpetuates the mythical link between mental illness and violence. ?Perhaps that wasn't your intention but it reads that way to me.?

?

This is why I'm puzzled about some of your other posts elsewhere. They're not congruent, much like mine.

Francesca Allan

Other posts on other subjects, RP? ?Not sure what you mean.

Goggles Pissano

The International Schizophrenia Foundation?provides all the literature and access to resources for those wanting to get well, and I mean totally well. People who are mentally well do not need counsellors etc. because they are WELL, but what do I know?

iriskairow iriskairow's picture

Treatment may be talking about it, or pills, but to leave people without treatment is a crime!

About 10 per cent of Canadians experienced a mental disorder such as depression, biopolar disorder or substance abuse in the past year, yet many said their mental health care needs were unmet, Statistics Canada reports.

The findings are included in the agency's 2012 Canadian Community Health Survey on mental health that was released Wednesday, and are based on a national sample of more than 25,000 people 15 or older in the 10 provinces.

In the previous year, more than one in six respondents experienced a need for mental health care, mainly for counselling, the survey suggests. Other mental health care needs were for medication and information.

"An estimated 600,000 had a perceived unmet mental health care need, and more than 1,000,000 had a partially met need," the report's authors said, extrapolating from the sample.

About 17 per cent of the population 15 or older reported having had an mental health care need in the past 12 months, the agency found. Of these:

- 67 per cent said their needs were met.

?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

The idea of getting arrested for being depressed saddens me.

Francesca Allan

iriskairow wrote:
Treatment may be talking about it, or pills, but to leave people without treatment is a crime!

Really? What about those of us who don't want treatment. Is it a crime to leave us alone?

Quote:
About 10 per cent of Canadians experienced a mental disorder such as depression, biopolar disorder or substance abuse in the past year

And a lot of this increase is due to expanded criteria for what counts as?a "mental disorder." Per the latest DSM, for instance,?bereavement lasting more than two weeks is now "depression." Well done, Big Pharma!

Francesca Allan

kropotkin1951 wrote:
The idea of getting arrested for being depressed saddens me.

Unless you're threatening or attempting suicide, a mental health arrest isn't that likely in this scenario. If you're manic or psychotic, however, your fundamental Charter rights?(for instance, against arbitrary detention) will be overruled by the psychiatric industry. Ever seen a MHA takedown? Not pretty, not pretty at all.

shartal@rogers.com

The stigma around mental health and the media need for a new threat is very real. However that does not negate the observation that some people who live with serious perceptual and / cognitive disabilities comit offences against the public order. Some cases and serious but most are offences like threatening, assault and theft under $5,000.

Thought needs to be given to how these cases are resolved. Speaking only for Ontario these cases are rarely driven only by mental health related impairments. Most cases in addition to some form of mental health diagnosis these accused are also very poor and live with some form of substance overuse. Many do not have stable housing. I believe it is more important to focus on the context within which the offence occurred rather that simple the offence.

That being said public safety is a real thing. Everyone has the right to be safe. But being inconvienced by someone yelling on a street car is different that threatening or assaulting someone or masterbating in a school yard.

On the civil side very few of my clients are involuntarily hospitalized because the Hopitals will not accept individuals who are not actively suicidal or threatening. In fact I have brought clients who were activity suicidal and in deeply paraniod crisis to the hospital for a brief time out they were refused admission because they were also impaired. Clients in crisis are routinely told to come back when they are sober. Last year 2 clients in accute crisis committed suicide after being denied hospital admissions. We also fear their being shot by Toronto police.

Francesca Allan

shartal@rogers.com wrote:
The stigma around mental health and the media need for a new threat is very real. However that does not
negate the observation that some people who live with serious perceptual and / cognitive disabilities comit offences against the public order.

And your point is what, exactly? Are you saying that the designated sane don't commit offences "against the public order"? Why do we have two standards? One for the designated sane and one for the psychiatrically labelled. It smacks of other-ism to me.

shartal@rogers.com wrote:
Some cases and serious but most are offences like threatening, assault and theft under $5,000.

Again, this is also true for all other offenders. What's so special about the insane?

shartal@rogers.com wrote:
Thought needs to be given to how these cases are resolved. Speaking only for Ontario these cases are rarely
driven only by mental health related impairments.

So, what you're saying is that even though there are myriad factors involved, we should just focus on the "insane" angle.

shartal@rogers.com wrote:
Most cases in addition to some form of mental health diagnosis these accused are also very poor and live with some form of substance overuse. Many do not have stable housing. I believe it is more important to focus on the context within which the offence occurred rather that simple the offence.

No, I don't think that's what you mean. You suggested clearly above that you feel the problem is the crazies threatening the public order.

shartal@rogers.com wrote:
That being said public safety is a real thing. Everyone has the right to be safe.

Indeed they do. But what you don't seem to understand is that “they” includes people like me. I have a right to be safe, too. Safe from forced drugging and electroshock, involuntary hospitalization, stigma, discrimination, a long list of others.

shartal@rogers.com wrote:
But being inconvienced by someone yelling on a street car is different that threatening or assaulting someone or masterbating in a school yard.

You're quite right and that is why all of these acts involve different sections of the Criminal Code. Or are you suggesting that yelling on a street car is a "sane offence" while your other two examples are "insane offences."? I fear that you are, in fact, making that false distinction.

shartal@rogers.com wrote:
On the civil side very few of my clients are involuntarily hospitalized because the Hopitals will not accept individuals who are not actively suicidal or threatening.

Don't know where you are but MHA arrests here (British Columbia) are?easy and very often unjustified. Perhaps we have more bed space than your province does, I don't know. Perhaps you're in Ontario where your Mental Health Act is faintly more in tune with civil liberties.

shartal@rogers.com wrote:
Last year 2 clients in accute crisis committed suicide after being denied hospital admissions.

Tragic. As is the case with all the people who commit suicide after being admitted to hospital and swallowed up by the psychiatric machine.

shartal@rogers.com wrote:
We also fear their being shot by Toronto police.

Of course. Being crazy and acting out (as opposed to just acting out) is an invitation to be tasered or worse. I'm not sure how your statement fits with the rest of your post, however. Are you saying we need to treat the mentally ill better? Or are you saying that we need more restrictive laws to make them smarten up?

Glad you're not my lawyer, by the way.

onlinediscountanvils

Francesca Allan wrote:
Glad you're not my lawyer, by the way.

This country would be better off if there were more lawyers like her.

shartal@rogers.com

The point of the post is that'll is important to differentiate between thugs and entrepreneurial accused, and individual pushed by the context of poverty, homelessness or substandard housing , trauma, childhood horrors, limited education, addictions and mental health related disabilities. I work exclusively with the latter. Most lawyers only focus on the charges. They will exchange shorter prison terms for pleas. However their clients are then released to the same conditions that gave rise to the offences in the first place. The rearrest and reincarcerationrates rates are high.

In Toronto I can often offer my clients an additional option to the trial or plea commonly offered. If the client chooses and the Crown accepts they can chose to take court mental health diversion. In this program the Iindividual works with social workers for between 6 months and a year to establish practical stability. If successful the Crown either withdraws the charges or stays them ( usually in drug cases). Success is defined as housing, benefits and establishing a successful relationship with community support agencies. Thie Province put real money into this program and as a result it is often easier to get clients practical supports after arrest than it was before. While this is going on I sort out ID issues, benefit issues, sometimes apply for Criminal Injury compensation and most importantly help clients find sustainable housing. If the client wants to we also refer to detox followed by harm reduction supports. This process also helps keep immigration deportations away.

Over 90% of my clients succeed. Sometimes the resolutions are very creative. For example one of my current cases is with a long term client who is diagnosed with schizophrenia and chooses not to take medication. He also refuses to sleep outside any building as he believes the air poisons him. He sleeps parks. On this occasion he chose to sleep in a park in the city core. When he was awakened by a large delivery truck and was very angry.He threw stones at the workmen and threatened to break their legs. Upon arrest he hit a cop. There were many witnesses.

In regular court if convicted with his current record he would face at least 2 months in prison. Through the mental health system I have negotiated a resolution that prohibits him from sleeping anywhere in the core of Toronto and in any park with early morning business related pedestrians. It will be solved through a peace bond and the assault, threatening bodily harm and resist arrest charges will be withdrawn.

This process is very important for clients accused of trafficking because of the Tory mandatory 1 year minimum for trafficking.

My job is to try to keep my clients out of jail and/ or hospital by networking community alternatives.

The point of all this post is many people are charged with criminal offences that can lead to jail. Jails are appalling. On the mental health side it is very difficult to get an absolute discharge from the mental health hospital system. I believe that in many case the legitimate sociatial concern with safety ( don't throw rocks at people) can be better served by working on changing the context of people's lives instead of by locking them up.

Currently over 40% of all federal and provincial prisoners are people diagnosed with major mental health disabilities. Statistically very few are detained for major charges. Most are detained for a combination of substantive minor charges and breaches of court orders. Most are in pretrial detention because the cannot get bail or serving sentences of 90 days or less. Most are very poor and live with concurrent serious mental health and addiction disabilities. These are my clients. Additional another truly appalling fact of many of their lives is that their criminal records document that many have spent about 1/3 of their lives detained, Ina kind of sequential perceptual incarceration. When clients live in better housing with more supports their rearrest and reincarceration rates decrease dramatically,

Francesca Allan

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Francesca Allan wrote:
Glad you're not my lawyer, by the way.

This country would be better off if there were more lawyers like her.

Really? Lawyers who blame those discriminated against in their employment? Or lawyers who contribute to the rampant stigmatization of the mentally ill?

shartal@rogers.com

specifically I do not blame the victims of discrimination in employment for the discrimination. My point has always been the in a Capitalist Canada Law is never fair. it is always about power. Poor people are always at a disadvantage. Rich powerful disabled individuals get more "justice" than poorer disabled people. I believe there is a fundamental contradiction between capitalism and both formal legal equality and formal enacted human rights. Overall from the SCC down Courts tend to by strong on equality and accommodation rhetoric and very weak on real enforceable proactive decisions. I work on a few employment human rights cases and have won some of the only cases in Ontario, However all those involved discriminatory firings. Discrimination in hiring is rampant but legally VERY hard to prove in Courts. The only real legally enforceable limitations on what is legally called "employers rights" that I have seem come with Unionization.

shartal@rogers.com

Point the street car example is that yelling is to my mind annoying but within the range of annoying behaviour that I believe we should all put up with, thus I oppose the criminalization of nuisance behaviours. However no one has the right to hurt or threaten people. That said I believe it is in my clients interest not to go to jail. If going through diversion will keep them out of jail and the offence off their record I believe this is better than jail.

Also please note that the standard for a successful diversion is not necessarily taking medication. The current legal test is behavioural, as in no new charges in 6 months and a place to live.

Francesca Allan

shartal@rogers.com wrote:
The point of the post is that'll is important to differentiate between thugs and entrepreneurial accused,
and individual pushed by the context of poverty, homelessness or substandard housing , trauma, childhood horrors, limited education,
addictions and mental health related disabilities.

That may have been what you intended but that's not what you wrote.

shartal@rogers.com wrote:
Currently over 40% of all federal and provincial prisoners are people diagnosed with major mental health
disabilities.

Interesting statistic but we have to keep in mind with all this kind of analysis that “mental illness” is an entirely subjective judgement so when we say Crazy Group A does this and Sane Group B does that, we don't even know what we're counting. With an diagnostic error rate approaching 50%, making any such kind of “scientific” statement is dangerous.

shartal@rogers.com wrote:
When clients live in better housing with more supports their rearrest and reincarceration rates decrease dramatically,

Isn't this true for everybody in our society. Is there really a need to specify “clients”?

shartal@rogers.com wrote:
The point of all this post is many people are charged with criminal offences that can lead to jail. Jails are appalling. On the mental health side it is very difficult to get an absolute discharge from the mental health hospital system.

True enough. And, having been through both systems, I can tell you that the criminal justice system is a vast improvement over the mental health system. In my crazy state about three years ago, I racked up several charges. Most of the activities that led to them were minor (dialling 911 repeatedly, re-arranging things on store shelves, pouring table salt out of shakers at a restaurant, etc.) but I was also charged with assault
for throwing a cup of coffee at a psych nurse. [Aside: strange how throwing an innocent person onto the floor, restraining her, injecting her with neurotoxins, and essentially jailing her without a court order isn't assault yet throwing paper coffee cups is.] Anyway, I was offered NCRMD and declined and chose to take my chances in court. A minor jail stay versus indefinite incarceration with drugs and electroshock? You bet I opted for jail. You'd have to be crazy not to :)

shartal@rogers.com

Please read what is actually written. If my post was unclear I hope this clarifies the street car example. I believe that yelling is annoying but within the range of behaviour that I believe we should all put up with, thus I oppose the criminalization of nuisance behaviours. However no one has the right to hurt or threaten people. That said I believe it is in my clients interest include not to go to jail. If going through diversion will keep them out of jail and the offence off their record I believe this is better than jail.

Also please note that the standard for a successful diversion is not necessarily taking medication. The current legal test is behavioural, as in no new charges in 6 months and a place to live.

Francesca Allan

shartal@rogers.com wrote:
specifically I do not blame the victims of discrimination in employment for the discrimination.

Well, you did in my case. I shared my?very good reasons to believe I'm being discriminated against due to my bringing my former?lay-off to the attention of the Human Rights Tribunal. You flew into the thread to say something like "Hey, it's not discrimination if you just don't like somebody so chill." Later, I reiterated that I can't even get interviews and suggested that not liking me wasn't a possibility?until the interview stage. I don't think you responded, though. It certainly seemed to me I was being blamed.

Francesca Allan

shartal@rogers.com wrote:
Also please note that the standard for a successful diversion is not necessarily taking medication. The current legal test is behavioural, as in no new charges in 6 months and a place to live.

Well, again, your province is much more progessive than mine (BC).

shartal@rogers.com

Today In Ontario your charge could be resolved through Mental Health diversion ending up with the charges being withdrawn. Thus no jail and no record.

Francesca Allan

shartal@rogers.com wrote:
Today In Ontario your charge could be resolved through Mental Health diversion ending up with the charges being withdrawn. Thus no jail and no record.

But mental health diversion would involve being subjected to brain-washing social workers and case workers, the type of people who ask "And how are we feeling today?" Also, I disapprove of the "insanity defence" (for want of a better phrase). It kind of strikes me as a perk that's tripping up the movement. (I feel the same way about spousal support working against gender equality). I didn't actually get sentenced to jail (18 months probation with very reasonable conditions, e.g. not to call 911 except in the case of a bona fide emergency) but I do, of course, have a criminal record which can't be wiped for?an extra 2?years (thank you, Stephen Harper). I did in fact commit those offences and I'm perfectly happy to suffer the consequnces.

shartal@rogers.com

Diversion involves meeting social workers ever two weeks to once a month. The do not ask how are you feeling they ask how is life going. The insanity defence is called not criminally responsible in Canada and it leads to involuntary hospitalization. MH diversion is only possible for individuals with some form of diagnosed MH disability. It's focus is on housing, benefits, and establishing long term supports. Most individuals who are diverted would probably be found NCR I and sent to involuntary hospitalization in a real court. For example an individual currently in court ( where I am waiting for one of my client) has a dead rat in his shirt and is inlcontanent. No one is taking his rat away and he is not hurting anyone. 3 weeks go he was screaming at everyone. This court is about the practical. I cannot effect the basic discriminatory misery that is the Canadian Justice system but I can work to try to protect my clients liberty and autonomy.

Francesca Allan

shartal@rogers.com wrote:
The insanity defence is called not criminally responsible in Canada

Yes, I know. That's why I referred to it as NCRMD in an earlier post and why I put "insanity defence" in quotes later.

shartal@rogers.com wrote:
MH diversion is only possible for individuals with some form of diagnosed MH disability.

But again, the emphasis is on "diagnosed" and diagnosis means some jackass who probably graduated at the bottom of his medical school talked to a patient for 9 minutes and looked up his?interpretation in the DCM.

shartal@rogers.com wrote:
It's focus is on housing, benefits, and establishing long term supports.

Sounds good. Pardon my earlier snottiness.

shartal@rogers.com wrote:
I cannot effect the basic discriminatory misery that is the Canadian Justice system but I can work to try to protect my clients liberty and autonomy.

Good. If all goes well, I'll be doing the same one day.

shartal@rogers.com

Illustration from 5 minuets ago. Accused x is a little Italian speaking man. He is very agitated. His case is currently in the MH court. He has just lost it, screaming at everyone. He came into the court being followed by 6 different workers who were trying to calm him down. He barged into someone else's conversation with the Judge screaming; a lot. Her Hounor asserted herself to get him to stop yelling, remanded the case and he left. If this had happened in a supermarket someone would have called the police. Crisisshould not equate with forcible arrest and didn't today in Court.

Francesca Allan

shartal@rogers.com wrote:
Crisisshould not equate with forcible arrest

I agree.

shartal@rogers.com wrote:
?and didn't today in Court.

Nor should it have.

onlinediscountanvils

Francesca Allan wrote:

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Francesca Allan wrote:
Glad you're not my lawyer, by the way.

This country would be better off if there were more lawyers like her.

Really?

Yes, really. That's why I wrote it.

Francesca Allan

onlinediscountanvils wrote:
Francesca Allan wrote:
onlinediscountanvils wrote:
Francesca Allan wrote:
Glad you're not my lawyer, by the way.
This country would be better off if there were more lawyers like her.
Really?
Yes, really. That's why I wrote it.

Please don't quote a snippet out of context. I had pertinent things to say immediately following "Really?" that explained that single word.

onlinediscountanvils

Francesca Allan wrote:
onlinediscountanvils wrote:
Francesca Allan wrote:
onlinediscountanvils wrote:
Francesca Allan wrote:
Glad you're not my lawyer, by the way.
This country would be better off if there were more lawyers like her.
Really?
Yes, really. That's why I wrote it.

Please don't quote a snippet out of context. I had pertinent things to say immediately following "Really?" that explained that single word.

I didn't quote your "pertinent" smear of a fellow babbler because I didn't feel that it even deserved a response. All I said was that I think we'd be better off with more lawyers like her.?You're the one who was trying to put words in my mouth, and yet?you're offended that I didn't quote you in full? Give me a fucking break! If you're going to put your own imaginary spin on my words, I reserve the right to not quote you in full.

shartal@rogers.com

POST ON A RELATED SUBJECT INCLUDED IN ORIGINAL POST

WHAT IS LEGITIMATE PUBLIC SAFETY?

Yesterday I described a situation that occurred within the Toronto Mental Health Court in which a very angry, agitated and aggressive person screamed at Court staff, support workers, other random people and the Judge for about 15 minutes until Her Honour convinced him to leave.

This individual is before the court after being charged with...here it is... Cause disturbance (screaming) and mischief under $5,000 (a small object was broken). It is alleged that he came into a drop in medical centre waiting room and began screaming and flailing his arms aggressively. The content of the screams did not make sense, thus he is not charged with threatening.

His alleged behaviour seriously frightened the other people in the waiting room. The police were called and he was arrested.

I agree that if this behaviour occurred it could have been very frightening; it would have frightened me. However there is a significant difference between forcing him to leave the waiting room and charging him.

As a society we talk about safety all the time but we rarely talk about what should reasonably constitute a criminal offence.Does any on have any thoughts on this question?

Francesca Allan

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Francesca Allan wrote:
onlinediscountanvils wrote:
Francesca Allan wrote:
onlinediscountanvils wrote:
Francesca Allan wrote:
Glad you're not my lawyer, by the way.
This country would be better off if there were more lawyers like her.
Really?
Yes, really. That's why I wrote it.

Please don't quote a snippet out of context. I had pertinent things to say immediately following "Really?" that explained that single word.

I didn't quote your "pertinent" smear of a fellow babbler because I didn't feel that it even deserved a response.

Wasn't a smear. Was legitimate interpretation of previous posts.

Quote:
All I said was that I think we'd be better off with more lawyers like her.

You're right.

Quote:
You're the one who was trying to put words in my mouth

I did? Where?

Quote:
and yet?you're offended that I didn't quote you in full?

Not offended. Just didn't think it was fair.

Quote:
I reserve the right to not quote you in full.

Of course. Just as I have the right to call you on it.

Sineed

shartal@rogers.com wrote:
POST ON A RELATED SUBJECT INCLUDED IN ORIGINAL POST WHAT IS LEGITIMATE PUBLIC SAFETY? Yesterday I described a situation that occurred within the Toronto Mental Health Court in which a very angry, agitated and aggressive person screamed at Court staff, support workers, other random people and the Judge for about 15 minutes until Her Honour convinced him to leave. This individual is before the court after being charged with...here it is... Cause disturbance (screaming) and mischief under $5,000 (a small object was broken). It is alleged that he came into a drop in medical centre waiting room and began screaming and flailing his arms aggressively. The content of the screams did not make sense, thus he is not charged with threatening. His alleged behaviour seriously frightened the other people in the waiting room. The police were called and he was arrested. I agree that if this behaviour occurred it could have been very frightening; it would have frightened me. However there is a significant difference between forcing him to leave the waiting room and charging him. As a society we talk about safety all the time but we rarely talk about what should reasonably constitute a criminal offence.Does any on have any thoughts on this question?

I think the Criminal Code, etc, does a good enough job of defining a criminal offense. I think what you must mean is, under what circumstances do we charge and convict certain individuals? And the Mental Health court is a step in the right direction, though of course the best recourse is to have the services that help prevent these individuals from getting into a desperate state in the first place.

That said, sometimes people do get into trouble, so what do we do? If someone is dangerous, they should be locked up. There is much hand-wringing about putting mentally ill people in jail, but Corrections is getting more progressive on this score, forming Special Needs units for vulnerable individuals and staffing them with properly trained people.?

shartal@rogers.com

You are correct what I am really asking is when should someone be arrested. I believe that our society needs to consider when an arrest is reasonable. Part of the answer may be the scope of the intention involved in the action. Case 1, an anti abortion activist stands infront of a medical clinic screaming about murdering the unborn. Case 2 x stands outside a medical clinic generically screaming. I think these cases are different. The person screaming in case 1 is trying to intimidate the women going inside. In case 2 an agitated angry person is screaming. My thought would be to arrest case 1 and to send someone over to case 2 to try to deescalate the screaming in case 2, only taking case 2 into custody (probably under a form1) if de escalation failed.

Sineed

Yes, context is crucial, and often the criminal justice system is too much of a blunt instrument.

My patients are drug addicts who go in and out of jail because of crimes committed out of desperation to obtain more drugs. They are not psychotic, but they have an illness that results in criminal behaviour. Treating addictions is complicated, however. If you force them into treatment that they don't want, it doesn't work (seen it many times).

The tone-deaf American system shows how not to do it - putting people in jail for decades has been an expensive and inhumane social experiment that has failed.

onlinediscountanvils

Francesca Allan wrote:
onlinediscountanvils wrote:
I reserve the right to not quote you in full.

Of course. Just as I have the right to call you on it.

Be my guest. I'll let you guess how much weight I give to scoldings from people who aren't even willing to follow their own advice.

Francesca Allan

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Francesca Allan wrote:
onlinediscountanvils wrote:
I reserve the right to not quote you in full.

Of course. Just as I have the right to call you on it.

Be my guest. I'll let you guess how much weight I give to scoldings from people who aren't even willing to follow their own advice.

Huh? What was my advice exactly? Not to take quotes out of context? So how am I unwilling to follow my own advice?