Can there be justice without taking away the freedom of the mentally ill?

Editor: I think the requirements of justice and the requirements of treating the mentally ill can be met without taking away the freedom of the mentally ill, except in a very narrow circumstances: where they pose a threat of harm to themselves or other. We cannot allow the mentally ill to injure or kill themselves or others. In such an instance, they must be confined.

The law is too broad in the powers it gives to the state: that in the effort to reach an opinion on whether someone is medically competent to stand trial the state is empowered to take away the freedom of that person. The state custodial power over the mentally ill ought not to exist, absent threat of harm. Otherwise, let their family care for them. That, however, is not the law.

The enduring value of the Yugge saga really resides in the intersection of two critical areas of Vincentian life: law and medicine. These usually proceed in their own trajectory, completely independent of each other. What happens when they intersect? Here the claims of law and the claims of medicine may not always go in the same direction. And the regime of mental health laws at this time point decisively in the direction of making the mentally ill ready to answer the claims of the laws. And this manifests itself most powerfully in the laws that deprive the mentally ill of their freedom.

So, what we need is a more humane response to the predicament of the mentally ill and to encode this empathy within the laws themselves.

Michael Dennie