What does the liberal government look like from the lens of a person with a mental disability? If I may, I would like to look through the lens of Vincent Li who is currently in the Selkirk Mental Health Centre for long term treatment. Li was found not criminally responsible for the gruesome murder of Tim McLean on a Greyhound bus on July 30, 2008 (Greyhound bus killer found not criminally responsible, 2009).
The events leading up to Li’s institutionalization are grotesque and disturbing and this case has carried with it a lot of emotions and sensitivity all across Canada. Ultimately in the end the court recognized that Li committed the act of murder however psychiatric evidence suggested (and proved) that Li was schizophrenic and was suffering from a psychotic episode at the time of the murder (Greyhound bus killer found not criminally responsible, 2009).
The conservative take on Li’s case was that he did the crime and thus he should do the time. The family of the victim also holds this traditional, as do many people who commented on the CBC news article (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2009/03/05/mb-li-verdict.html). I think that this is a normal response to social justice whereby it is the responsibility of the individual to look after him or herself. When not taken care of, problems such as schizophrenia and mental disabilities are likely to arise. If you have never suffered from a mental disability it is hard to be empathetic and understanding of someone who does suffer from one. People with a conservative view in regards to this case, would see only the act of Li stabbing McLean, and not the more liberal view whereby he did stab him but it was because he was having a psychotic episode involving hearing voices from God telling him that McLean was a demon and that he had to kill him in self-defence.
Furthermore contrasting to the conservative view, the court in this case took the liberal stance whereby they agreed that Li committed the crime but they recognized that the crime was a result of psychosis and schizophrenia and thus he should not be held criminally responsible because he was clearly mentally ill at the time of the murder. The decision for Li to be institutionalized and undergo treatment is to “make him better” so he can be a functioning equal member of society again one day. The liberalist view is to change the individual or their subsystem to make it easier for individuals to carry out daily obligations. By providing Li with adequate care and more effective methods of communication, and socialization it is believed that he will be rehabilitated and/or re-socialized to be more congruent with society.
As presented in class, the function of social welfare is that members must be physically, socially, psychologically, financially, and materially healthy. In Li’s case social welfare was hindered in that not all of these needs were met and thus physical, psychological, and social harm. Many people have criticised the court’s decision in part because they do not understand mental disability. The court recognized that Li was an immigrant to Canada and that other factors such as discrimination and problems at home may have contributed to his social welfare. This is demonstrated in Mullay (2007) as a liberalist view in that there are numerous interdependent social systems that are not perfect and may lead to unhealthy functioning. Such as disrupt equilibrium results in social disorganization and personal disorganization. It could be argued then that Li’s personal disorganization was a result of his migration to Canada resulting in discrimination in his day to day functions thus promoting stress in areas of his life such as family, work, and education. The end result was a mental disability that he was not able to control.
While the sensitivity of this case is still extremely high, for traditional views of punishment it is comforting to note that in Manitoba we have more of a conservative view of consumers of mental health whereby doctors have more rights to put and keep people in hospitals or institutions. In Ontario it is tougher to keep people in hospitals and patients have more rights. This is important to note because while Li avoided jail time, he is still being held in a psychiatric center against his will. He is reviewed once a year by the board to assess whether or not his is fit to be reintegrated into society. Li has just been granted the privilege to walk outside (supervised in a gated region) which in my opinion is less freedom then that of an inmate in jail. So while he doesn’t hold a criminal record for his actions, he has lost the rights to live freely and is still in some form of a jail setting. His yearly evaluations can be viewed no differently than a parole board evaluating an inmate, and thus Li is being punished for his actions regardless of his mental state.
In conclusion Li’s case demonstrates that clearly mental illness is not always seen as a disability and often the mentally ill are a threat to the society. Vincent Li’s “not criminally responsible” verdict, while wavering back and forth, is a perfect example of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench having a liberal stance towards mental disability. The outrage and sensitivity of this case has clearly proven that in contrast to the liberal Criminal Justice System, the majority of society very much holds the view that if you do the crime you should do the time and does not take into account the social and environmental stresses imposed upon the criminally responsible individual. In my personal opinion I think that it will be very difficult to change this traditional view of cases (such as Li’s) involving persons found not criminally responsible on account of a mental disability because it is a newer idea and more difficult for people to relate, understand and cope with such verdicts. The current Canadian view is that justice is served with an “eye for an eye” and thus in a sense a liberal view of equality for actions however a conservative view of traditional punishment.
~ Tara
References
Greyhound bus killer found not criminally responsible (2009, March 5). CBC News. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2009/03/05/mb-li-verdict.html
Mullaly, R. (2007). The new structural social work (3rd Ed.). Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.
Excellent analysis, Tara! I really like the way you compared and contrasted liberal and conservative ideologies as applied to the case of Vincent Li. You also put your finger on a hot button topic, one where social workers often are at odds with many other people in society.
ReplyDeleteYou touched on Li's history of immigration (and perhaps racism, too), as a potential factor in the development and expression of his illness. You're really developing an excellent social work analysis!
Tara,
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting, as you mentioned in your blog post, that people feel so strongly that Vincent Li should be held criminally responsible and punished to the fullest extent of the law, even though he has been deemed mentally unstable. I do understand why people were so sensitive to the issue considering the severity of this offense. It seems to me, people often overlook the fact that people with mental disabilities who commit serious crimes do not cognitively understand their actions. I agree with your statement that mentally disabled people need to be institutionalized in a facility equipped to handle the needs of mentally disabled people instead of treating them as if they were of sound mind.
As defined by the National Post the “central concept [of Tim’s Law] seems to be that murderers whose guilt is in no doubt whatsoever should either be executed or put away for life without possibility of parole” (National Post). I believe Tim’s Law was proposed originally by grieve stricken parents, family, and friends, but the support for this proposed law is overwhelming. A lot has been written in regards to this incident and the pros and cons of corporal punishment. I disagree with the concepts of Tim’s Law because it seems to me, that “murders whose guilt is in no doubt whatsoever,” (National Post) usually do not care if they are caught, and often time those are the mentally unstable people who should not be held criminal responsible in the first place.
I am curious as to what you think about Tim’s law in regards to Vincent Li’s crime, comparing mental disabled people and people with “healthy” minds. Do you think there should be any special considerations for someone with a mental disability if this law were passed? Do you think this law should be considered or is it unreasonable in your opinion?
What ‘Tim’s Law’ tells us. National Post. Retrieved from http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=a08cb31f-97fb-4261-b5e2-d1cb9d32ab89
-Darcie B.
I agree with you Darcie when you say that people often over look cognitive impairments and are quick to blame the act of the person before considering the legistics. Tim's Law in my opinion is just an unrealistic attempt by the family and friends of Tim McLean to curb the pain felt by the loss of their son. The research suggests that when a person suffers from psychotic episodes they should not be held criminally responsible. I think that if the family and friends were to experience the episode Vincent Li was having they would be more empathetic and recognize the disabling affect of a mental illness.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely think that special considerations should be make for someone who is clinically diagnosed by a trained psychiatrist, and I think that this law is unrealistic in that the mentally ill would not receive the treatment they need, and thus I do not think it should be considered to be passed!
Thanks for the thought you put into the reply on this post!
Tara Purvis