Canadian Psychiatric Association Criticizes Crime Bill
The Canadian Psychiatric Association has raised serious concerns with the new omnibus crime bill that is set to be passed in 2012. The bill introduces new mandatory minimum sentences for many crimes. Dr. Gary Chaimowitz, speaking for the CPA, asked that the bill allow for a waiving of those minimum sentences in some cases of mental illness. He also noted that, as psychiatric services have been cut, an increasing percentage of the mentally ill are ending up in prison. The psychiatric services in prisons, he said, are substandard: “This is a first world country, but some of the conditions in which the mentally ill are housed or live in the correctional system can be appalling.” Justice Minister Rob Nicholson responded that the new institutions that are being built to house new inmates will also include improved psychiatric health facilities, but has not moved to change the conditions of the minimum sentences. More information can be found in this article from the Globe and Mail.
Commentary
The rhetoric behind the Canadian government’s crime bill has a subtly discriminatory element in it towards those with mental illnesses. It separates the “ordinary, law-abiding Canadians” from the “criminals.” However, mental illness can make it more difficult to follow the law, from grandiosity to anger to addiction to full-blown psychosis. Sometimes, mentally ill people are responsible for their actions and sometimes they are not, but usually the mental illness is a mitigating factor. The reasoning behind these minimum sentences is that ordinary, law-abiding Canadians have no struggles when following the law, so neither should the mentally ill.
It is important that the CPA has spoken out publicly about this change in the law, as it lends credibility to the opposition to it. The CPA isn’t just some advocacy group. They are the professional institution of physicians entrusted to take care of the mental health of Canadians. The federal government is largely shrugging its shoulders at their criticisms, which raises serious concerns about how seriously the government takes mental illness or those charged with its care.
Related posts:
Leave a Reply
