A unique political issue has emerged that involves voting rights and people who have been found not guilty of crimes by reason of insanity. Lawmakers in Rhode Island are pushing to take away voting rights for these people, which has sparked some very interesting debate that drawns in politics and psychology. I think this is a pretty complex issue, and one of the largest concerns for me is whether this sets a precedent that people with severe mental illness who are not even involved in criminal litigation could be in danger of losing voting rights in the future.
(5 votes, average: 4.8 out of 5)
Loading ...You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
6 Comments to
“Mental Illness & Voting Rights”
If someone is under an involountary treatment order for mental health treatment then are they allowed to vote?
My doubt is,the person who is not mentally fit,will they come down to vote? Even though they comes,what is the percentage among all the voters? I guess the percentage would be less than one.Is this percentage make a difference in the results?
Low Cost European Roadside assistance
First they take away the right to vote of the “potentially criminal” mentally ill; then (as suggested by alexandra_k in her comment), they take the right of those who’ve been “involuntarily treated” for mental illness; then they come after the rest of the mentally ill. Soon, if you’re “mentally ill”, you’re less than a “full citizen,” then you’re “less than fully human.” (Euthanasia, anyone?)
It may be a long time coming, but if we don’t fight it, that’s the way the trend is headed.
First they take away the right to vote of the “potentially criminal” mentally ill; then (as suggested by alexandra_k in her comment), they take the right of those who’ve been “involuntarily treated” for mental illness; then they come after the rest of the mentally ill. Soon, if you’re “mentally ill”, you’re less than a “full citizen,” then you’re “less than fully human.” (Euthanasia, anyone?)
It may be a long time coming, but if we don’t fight it, that’s the way the trend is headed.
And the really scary thing is, who’s to say what constitutes “mental illness”? In other words, if your doctor or the “specialist” they reccomend decides you’re in need of treatment, whether it’s actually true or whether they have ulterior motives, what good would it do for you to argue? (You must be mentally ill if you refuse treatment; who wouldn’t want to “get better”?)
basically this rationale isnt too complex..
look at this this way
-> DOCTORS ARE THE ONE’s RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING PATIENTS FEEL BETTER , IF DOCTORS ARE THE ONE’s TAKING LIVES then IS HE REALLY A DOCTOR?!
-> BE PRACTICAL! WE ARE MODERN IN OUR TIME!!
WHY NOT ASK HELP !
ADVERTISE in RADIOS! TVS! WHO!
thats it..
those who go for MERCY KILLING?!
one thing i can say bout u
-> DUMB…
I guess the best thing is to stay involved in the policymaking process for mental healthcare. That applies to Mental Health Law, too.
Join the Conversation! Post a Comment:
Last reviewed: By John M. Grohol, Psy.D. on 27 Jun 2007
