« Legislative excess | Main | How green is my windfarm? »
November 27, 2003
Care and the community
Our newspapers are currently full of the court case involving the man accused of murdering two young girls, and his partner, who allegedly helped him to conceal it. In parallel was another multiple murder trial involving a man who was accused of murdering three women. This latter trial was dramatically halted when the accused changed his plea to guilty and confessed to the court the entire sorry story. The first continues and the defence is arguing that it was all a tragic accident. I do not wish to pre-empt the court on this one.
The second trial, which resulted in a change of plea has a worrying element to it, because it is yet another instance where a person suffering from a serious mental disorder has been discharged by the psychiatric team entrusted with his care, into the "community" where he is supposed to be able to "integrate" back into the society which is the cause of his disturbed state in the first place. The argument goes, that his mental condition has "improved" and is "controlled" by the drug regime. Fine, so as as soon as he leaves the hospital, who ensures that he gets the medication? Some poor social worker who is supposed to supervise a group of these people and who is not, in law, allowed to force them to take the pills!
Now most of the people treated in this way are perfectly harmless and will never be a threat to anyone other than themselves. It is a different story with those known to become violent or to nurse a particular grudge against a section of society.
It is this last group that are a threat to everyone they encounter and who should not, in my view, be permitted to be released if there is even the slightest question that a lapse in medication will produce a danger to any member of society. The case in the Old Bailey of the sick man who murdered three women simply begs the question. In our legal system, he is found guilty and sent to serve his time in a secure psychiatric hospital. Fine, so he is no danger then. Wrong, as soon as he is "controlled" again, and the public have forgotten what he looks like, he'll be allowed out to go shopping or to "socialise". At first this will be supervised, but later he will be allowed unsupervised trips.
What will happen if he simply fails to return after one of these trips? Who will be held responsible if he then attacks and kills another member of the unsuspecting public? Correct! No one. His doctors, parole officers, nurses and social workers will all hide behind their "risk assessments" and declare that there was no way of preventing this, or that it is not their responsibility, they were simply following the rules.
Nice little dichotomy isn't it. The power to release into an unsuspecting society a ticking bomb and never have to take the can when it goes off. As for all the pressure groups that insist on maintaining this dangerous practice, where are they when some family loses a daughter, a son, a father or a mother to one of these "victims" of society? Yeah, right, holding another press conference to defend the perpetrators rights.
Posted by The Gray Monk at November 27, 2003 11:27 AM