File spoon-archives/marxism-psych.archive/marxism-psych_1997/97-03-06.061, message 80


Date: 24 Feb 97 02:52:37 EST
From: Chris Burford <100423.2040-AT-compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: M-PSY: Laws don't stop lunatics


Brenda wrote:

>>There was a shooting in New Zealand recently. A young man shot and killed
six people and wounded others in a small rural village.  

However, as his lawyer said,  when commenting on the newspaper articles
which cited his client as being mentally ill; there is no evidence on which
to base these comments of 'mental illness'.   The man had no (known)
history of mental illness and was being assesed at the time.
I believe he is right, just because there is an act out of 'normal'
societial norms, why should the person immediately be assumed to be
psychiatrically unwell??

This is I guess, another discussion of Mad or Bad..

Brenda MacCulloch
ajmac-AT-iconz.co.nz

<<<

I am wondering whether the distinction is between psychiatrically ill and 
emotionally disturbed. Previously people who were emotionally disturbed
were diagnosed as being ill and lost their liberty. Including people like
Janet Frame, (whose story is portrayed in "An Angel at my Table").

Were there not indications in the reports of this recent tragedy that there 
was an emotional problem involving his immediate family?
Perhaps he should not have been diagnosed as psychiatrically ill, but should
he and millions of others have access to counselling?

Chris Burford




     --- from list marxism-psych-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005