Posted by KenB on October 31, 2000, at 0:24:19
In reply to Re: Does Mental Illness Exist? - Yes, encore!, posted by dj on October 30, 2000, at 23:01:34
Stevens’ practice has apparently not focused on countering insanity pleas, but rather has occasionally included representation of clients at committal hearings. Stevens’ pamphlets seem to be written, in part, for trial attorneys defending people at committal hearings. The mission of attorneys is to zealously defend their clients. To restrict arguments in court to only that of the majority of any industry would not serve justice.
Many lawyers lack experience in the defense of clients at committal hearings, or at hearings to require forcible outpatient medication. Unprepared trial attorneys feed appellate courts. Cases that rise to the appellate level, after being bungled by inexperienced and uninformed lawyers, cost taxpayers money.
That Stevens takes time to produce and distribute uncopyrighted pamphlets reflects a commitment to civic service, and suggests that he enjoys some financial security. The pamphlets are available not only to defense attorneys, but also to states’ attorneys who wish to better prepare themselves for arguments they might encounter at a committal hearing. The availability of prepared arguments for use by attorneys in trial courts tends to resolve cases that would otherwise move on to appeals courts. Savvy argument at trial can offer appellate jurists an opportunity to address new controversies, rather than require them to rehash and correct persistent trial errors.
The downside of an adversarial legal system is that parties are encouraged to polarize their arguments, to the point of excluding the kind of information that otherwise can advance understanding of some matters.
Stevens’ pamphlets, and a list of attorneys who represent clients in psychiatric cases are posted at the Anti-Psychiatry Coalition's on-line reading room. http://www.anti-psychiatry.org. Stevens’ contact information and a license number that would identify his practice are not included at that site.
Further, concerning the University of Michigan nurses’ study, in reference to which Reg. A. Williams, a U-M associate professor of nursing said:
> > “Our findings reinforce the fact that depression is an illness and not a character flaw or a weakness.”
Weaknesses of short term memory or of attention cited in the study are weaknesses. The inability to think clearly would seem to undermine “character.”
William’s well-intended comment seems directed at those who would morally stigmatize sufferers of mental distress. The risk of separating “illness” from “character” in studies of the mind is that to do so suggests character flaws exist that are not illnesses. The argument says either there are no character flaws, or that there are character flaws that are not illnesses. That argument, in a legal forum, encourages individual responsibility, but in a social forum, tends to reduce pathological character traits to an individual moral trait. The stance tends to overlook systematic stressors that seem to consistently correlate with a high population of sociopathic character traits in many, especially urban, neighborhoods. The presumption of character flaws that are not illnesses might delay discovery of ways to prevent mental illness.
poster:KenB
thread:47722
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20001022/msgs/47793.html