The OCCUPIED
Guest Viewpoint: Kendra's Law Violates Rights of Mentally Ill
Written by Myra Kovary, Steven Periard and Larry Roberts
Binghamton Press and Sun-Bulletin, Ithaca Journal June 12, 2012
The
May 18 Guest Viewpoint by DJ Jaffe titled "Changes to Kendra's Law
would aid more who need it" makes a case for a new piece of legislation
called Kendra's Law Improvement Act. It which would allow courts to
mandate programs for people diagnosed with mental illness whose court
mandate under existing law has expired, the individual has moved away
beyond the court's jurisdiction, or is released from incarceration and
placed back in the community. The existing law, called Kendra's Law,
allows courts to mandate treatment for people who are diagnosed with a
mental illness as a requirement to remain in the community.
If
one is able to look beyond the stereotypes of the so-called "mentally
ill," one might see the existing law — and its proposed extension — as a
clear violation of an individual's civil rights, and one would be
right.
But
Jaffe doesn't see it that way. To him, and those like-minded, this is a
matter of protecting the individual from harming himself or herself
and/or the community. A noble cause, to be sure, were its foundation not
built on the unsteady ground of fear and ignorance.
First,
Jaffe's knowledge of people diagnosed with mental illness is relegated
to antiquated stereotypes. To quote: "As a result of their untreated
illness, they don't 'think' they are the Messiah — they 'know' it." He
might as well have included an illustration of a crazy person dressed
like Napoleon to support his argument. It would have been equally
baseless and ignorant.
Second,
Jaffe asserts that the new law would help people stay in treatment, an
argument that supposes a person diagnosed with a mental illness cannot
recover and will need treatment long-term, perhaps for the rest of his
or her life. Even the existing law, obviously somewhat more informed,
proposes a time limit on the mandate.
Third,
Jaffe cites statistics to support his argument for countering violent
behavior under Kendra's Law, though he does not offer sources for these
statistics. Instead he uses the obligatory phrase "a recent study found
..." If fear of violence is the impetus for this new law, its logic runs
counter to a recent article published on the National Institute for
Mental Health's (NIMH) website, which states that "Most people with SMI
[Severe Mental Illness] are not violent, and most violent acts are not
committed by people with SMI. In fact, people with SMI are actually at
higher risk of being victims of violence than perpetrators." The article
goes on to state that "those with SMI are 11 times more likely to be
victims of violent crime than the general population."
As a result of policies
enacted through Kendra's Law and legislation that supports it, we are
also more likely to lose our civil rights in the guise of protecting
ourselves and the public.
We
don't presume to speak for Assemblywoman Barbara Lifton, the New York
State Office of Mental Health, the Conference of Mental Hygiene
Directors, and a total of 16 organizations who oppose the bill. But if
they do not see this as a civil rights violation, then certainly they
must at the very least view this legislation as counterproductive and
not worthy of their support.
Kovary, Periard and Roberts are members of the Ithaca Mental Patients Advocacy Coalition (IMPAC).
