I’m in something of two minds (sorry) over this.
Should the civil liberties of a small group of mentally ill and
potentially dangerous individuals be subordinated to the greater good
of public protection?
The knee-jerk reaction is no.
The problem is deciding who poses a risk. Critics of the Bill have
likened these powers to the old Soviet gulags where anybody could be
locked away, secretly and for ever.
Precisely.
But there are human rights and other safeguards galore built into mental health care today.
There may well be but:
Almost a third of the killings were committed by people judged by
mental health staff not to be a risk to the public just a few days
earlier.
So we don’t actually know who should be locked up.
Nevertheless, a balance must be struck between the rights of a small
group of mentally ill people and the wider interests of the community.
The law cannot be framed only in the interests of the former.
I think I’m still inclined to the knee jerk reaction. Yes, the law should be framed only in the interests of a small group, that’s pretty much what humand rights means, isn’t it?
Leave a Reply