The purpose of my blog post is to display thought provoking inconsistencies within our judicial system based on different political ideologies; however I plan to focus on people with mental disabilities through a neo-conservative lens. The article I have chosen to explore is a perfect example of a relationship between neo-conservatism and the disregarded population who are not categorized in some way to function within this particular ideology. Examining the law and order belief of Neo-conservatives strongly puts forth the inconsistencies criticized in this radical view.
This article from the Winnipeg Free Press is about the unjust incarceration of an elderly man, diagnosed with Alzheimer’s. On Sept. 2, 2010, Joe McLeod was arrested for assaulting his wife, Rose; after she attempted to show McLeod a photograph to help him in recognize her (“Family wants man,” 2010). Even though there is never an excuse for violent behaviours; studies show “cognitive impairment in patients, often described as memory problems in these early studies, has been associated with a higher risk for caregiver abuse or violence” (Paveza et al., 1992, p. 493). Further results also “suggests that a person with Alzheimer's disease is 2.25 times at greater risk for a physically abusive episode than an older person living in the community” (Paveza et al., 1992, p. 496). Based on the presence of cognitive impairment people with mental disabilities, particularly Alzheimer’s, should not be expected to be held legally liable for their actions.
The imprisonment of Joe McLeod clearly depicts neo-conservative principles of both the ideology’s political beliefs and the view of the nation-state. Neo-conservatives believe government interventions should not happened and Mullaly explores how they view the nation-state as the “necessary evil that maintains law and order” (Mullaly, 2007, p. 79). This principle demonstrated their belief that it is necessary to enforce law and order; ignoring any exceptions, including people who are not mentally able to comprehend their actions in committing a crime. These drastic beliefs over generalize the population, disregarding that our society is diverse, in every sense of diversity, that cannot be categorized in strictly black and white views. The mentally disabled people in our society are just one example of the gray that needs to be considered.
This idea of black and white views connects with another issue I want to explore; the zero-tolerance policy around spousal abuse. According to the department of justice “In 1990, Manitoba established the first specialized family violence court in Winnipeg, [including the] zero-tolerance [and] pro-arrest polic[ies]” (“Spousal abuse policies,” 2000, p. 40). This legislation highlights the neo-conservative’s position on the strict guidelines of how to deal with spousal abuse. Even though the policy indicates a zero-tolerance view, the spousal abuse policies and legislation do identify the existence of challenges within the policy indicating “there is increasing recognition that a co-ordinated response is required—one that integrates criminal justice, social service, mental health and community responses” (“spousal abuse policies,” 2000, p. 39).
I believe this ideology cannot function within our society because “although there may be a grain of truth in many neo-conservative arguments, there is a tendency to exaggerate this grain of truth and to generalize on the basis of insufficient evidence” (Mullaly, 2007, p. 88). Neo-conservative views also describe social justice issues as “there are no social problems, only personal problems that occur when individuals do not look after themselves” (Mullaly, 2007, p. 79). The extremeness of this judgment displaces the mentally disabled people in our society because some personal problems require help from a social society. Neo-conservative ideology’s belief on government interventions is non-existent, however “the primary role of the state is to maintain law and order… But anything beyond protecting people’s lives and property by maintain law and order becomes, in the eye of the neo-conservatives, a threat to liberty” (Mullaly 2007, p. 77).
This article is a perfect contrast to our group post on liberalism referring to a mentally disabled person, Vincent Li, suffering from schizophrenia and psychosis. Li brutally and violently murdered an innocent victim on a Greyhound bus in 2008. These ideologies, however similar, differ regarding an important issue around individualism versus society. Liberalism understands the necessity for society to intervene when the welfare of its citizens are at stake; in the case of Vincent Li he was found not criminally responsible. In my opinion, mentally disabled people should be dealt with under the liberal ideology where the distinction of who really needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law differs from a more appropriate ruling based on the limitations of the individual.
I have several personal connections to people diagnosed with Alzheimer’s and I feel I have a conceptual understanding of the deterioration of the disease. I have witnessed the emotionally exhausting effects on the friends and family of the people affected by this disease. Even through observation, I could not truly comprehend how devastating it would be as the victim to be alone in your mind and alone while institutionalized. The fear I witnessed on a general day could only substantially increase for a mentally ill person cut off from the only regularity remaining in there confused life.
In conclusion, neo-conservative views are too radical, and the principles within this ideology are not inclusive to everyone within our society. Through personal experience and education, I believe people with mental disabilities need more resources and support when dealing with the clearly defined zero-tolerance policy and a balance needs to be considered.
-Darcie B.
-Darcie B.
(2007, July 19). Definition of Alzheimer’s disease. MedicineNet.com. Retrieved from http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=2213
(2009, March 5). Greyhound bus killer found not criminally responsible. CBC News. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2009/03/05/mb-li-verdict.html
(2010, October 6). Family wants man with Alzheimer’s moved out of remand centre. Winnipeg Free Press. Retrieved from http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/Family-wants-man-with--104423844.html
Department of Justice Canada. (2000). Spousal abuse policies and legislation. Retrieved from http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/fv-vf/rep-rap/spous-conju.html
Mullaly, B. (2007). The new structural social work (3rd Ed.). Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.
Darcie, I am curious if you think zero-tolerance for domestic abuse should have more exceptions or do you see an alternative to the police having to arrest someone when they get there if a mental issue is the cause? Myself I wonder if the zero tolerance policy might have been applied differently if the wife had been the "aggressor."
ReplyDeleteDAVID HAYWARD
David,
ReplyDeleteI personally believe that regardless of the circumstances, if there has been a domestic dispute, and the police must be called they should remove the alleged aggressor from the area. I feel there are exceptions that need to be considered such as occurrences involving people with mental health issues. I do believe these offenders should also be removed from the situation. However, they should not necessarily be detained in jails or charged with a crime, as is the normal course of action, without confirmed statements from the victim and evidence to substantiate the claims.
I assume the wife felt she had no other options in this situation but to call the police as her safety was at risk. If other services were available to caregivers of people with mental disabilities, such as Alzheimer’s, she may have chosen alternative actions. I am not personally aware of such a service. In this situation, the aggressor with mental disabilities could have been removed and properly cared for in a facility specifically equipped to deal with these situations, without being charged with a crime.
I, too, was wondering whether any differences may have occurred if the wife had been the aggressor. I hope the same precautions and outcomes would have transpired for either sex. Domestic violence is obviously unacceptable, and the sex of the aggressor should not matter. Any policies need to be universally applied with the appropriate procedures followed for any domestic abuse whether instigated by people with mental disabilities or not, male or female.
I also want to add, as we discussed in another course, the zero tolerance policy can cause more risk to the victim and it acts as a deterrent to involve the police and the victim is often afraid of the long term consequences of the policy. As one of our instructors told us, from her personal experience, 80% of the victims she counselled returned to their abusers. This is why victims do not call the police. Why would they charge their abusers when it costs money for lawyers and can affect job opportunities or travel experiences?
-Darcie B.