It is in breach of what I know about the tenets of UK justice. The punishment it can enable can be equal to punishment for crimes.
One of the big problems iis the removal of the treatability test. I'm not a lawyer but know enough to know that case law is more important than any amendments to an act but I would guess the act was changed because of case law.
The treatability test I don't fully understand. I think it means there should be treatment available. Removing it means disorders which have no treatment, specifically psychopathy, can be 'treated' by hospitalisation under section but no treatment offered nor available nor required to be provided or developed.
This is not that dfferent from the punishment of incaceration. The facilities in which people are detained are somewhat better sometimes.
Deprivation of liberty is society's worst punishment and only used on those who've actually committed a crime. The criminal justice system and forensic science are well funded because innocence of crime is the starting point and guilt has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt - or something like that. The innocent shouldn't be punished by incarceration.
Except if a psychiatrist says so. And the HRA allows them to. The MHA allows them to be incarcerated without treatment and without precision about the definition of mental illness.
Essentially it means a person can be incarcerated for being mentally ill and at risk of committing a crime. Both those assessments are the judgement of a psychiatrist alone. Their are few checks and little oversight. No treatment is a guaranteed right so it can be pure and indefinite incarceration.
However if the person is not mentally ill and at risk of committing a serious crime then they are allowed to be free. Anything less would be against human rights law.
No comments:
Post a Comment